On 26.04.2013, at 20:08, Dominik Dingel wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:52:48 +0200 > Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > >> >> On 26.04.2013, at 14:12, Dominik Dingel wrote: >> >>> From: Christian Paro <cp...@us.ibm.com> >>> >>> Provide a loadparm property which can be used to pass IPL load >>> parameters on a per-device basis for VirtioCcwDevice instances >>> representing block and network devices. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Paro <cp...@us.ibm.com> >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c >>> index 56539d3..23d042f 100644 >>> --- a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c >>> +++ b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c >>> @@ -791,6 +791,7 @@ static const VirtIOBindings virtio_ccw_bindings = { >>> >>> static Property virtio_ccw_net_properties[] = { >>> DEFINE_PROP_STRING("devno", VirtioCcwDevice, bus_id), >>> + DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("loadparm", VirtioCcwDevice, loadparm, 0), >> >> We don't support netboot yet, right? Also is "loadparm" an architected name? >> Wouldn't "bootmap_id" or something that actually tells the user what's going >> on fit better? >> >> >> Alex > > Christian had the idea to name it subindex, but I don't know, to be honest, I > like the general open solution more, especially for the commandline > interface. What if we later on want to change the behaviour, loadparm, or > better biosparameter is so general... where bootmap_id is narrowed down.
How about you guys make up your mind first what you really want to describe and which use cases you want to cover? :) Alex