[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] [PATCH] ccw: split descriptor/available/used rings
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:53:26PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:26:38 +0300 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:16:06PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:12:39 +0300 > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > This reminds me - our use of the SenseID format for device > > > > identification is not in the spec, is it? > > > > We should probably add it - want to do this? > > > > > > I don't think there's a need to do so, as it is a standard channel > > > command. Every control unit/device since 1973 supports it :) > > > > The format of the command is standard, yes. > > But I really meant which virtio field goes into which field > > and how does a driver match. > > > > Linux guest does: CCW_DEVICE(0x3832, 0) > > so it ignores device type and model, and > > matches controller model against virtio device ID. > > > > This really should be documented in spec - it's not good > > that people need to look at guest code to write hypervisors. > > Ah, I see what you mean. It is already there in 2.3.3.1., but we could > it more explicit: > > === > > SenseID will return the following information for a virtio-ccw proxy > device: > > ---------------------------------------------- > | control unit type | 0x3832 | > |-----------------------|--------------------| > | control unit model | <virtio device id> | > |-----------------------|--------------------| > | device type | zeroes (unset) | > |-----------------------|--------------------| > | device model | zeroes (unset) | > |-----------------------|--------------------| > | extended SenseId data | zeroes (unset) | > ---------------------------------------------- > > A driver for virtio-ccw devices should look for a control unit type of > 0x3832 and ignore the device type. > > === > > I think ignoring the device type is obvious, though. I think it's a MUST, not a should, right? It's not really obvious - if you just describe what hardware does then drivers just think they can make assumptions. If we want drivers to do something we really must write it explicitly.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]