On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmio be just
another bus, like a pci bus, and another binding, like the virtio-pci
binding?
(a) the current code is really not very nice because it's not
actually a proper set of QOM/qdev devices
(b) unlike PCI, you can't create sysbus devices on the
command line, because they don't correspond to a user
pluggable bit of hardware. We don't want users to have to know
an address and IRQ number for each virtio-mmio device (especially
since these are board specific); instead the board can create
and wire up transport devices wherever is suitable, and the
user just creates the backend (which is plugged into the virtio bus).
-- PMM
This is what I am saying: create your own bus and put
your devices there. Allocate resources when you init
a device.
Instead you seem to want to expose a virtio device as two devices to
user - if true this is not reasonable.
The modifications will be transparent to the user, as we will keep
virtio-x-pci devices.
Then what's the point of all this?
-device virtio-pci,id=transport1 -device virtio-net,bus=transport1
or
-device virtio-mmio,id=transport1 -device virtio-net,bus=transport1
Is simply an insane way to create a network device.