On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:47:18 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 9 August 2017 at 10:07, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > While virtio-pci and virtio-ccw seem to require separate dedicated > > devices (e.g. virtio-9p-pci and virtio-9p-ccw) for everything, > > virtio-mmio seems to work different. As far as I can see, there are no > > dedicated virtio-xxx-mmio devices in the code at all. According to > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-August/msg00009.html > > you simply have to use virtio-xxx-device here instead. And a > > virtio-9p-device is available. So theoretically, the 9p code should work > > with virtio-mmio, too, or is there a problem that I did not see yet? > > > > Anyway, we likely should not blindly enable this, so unless somebody has > > a setup to test it, we should go with your current patch instead, I think. > > As you say, we already compile the virtio-9p-device that can > plug into any virtio transport. So why not just build it > whenever virtio of any form is enabled? Having it only > build if PCI is also enabled seems very odd: the backend > should not care at all about what transport it is using. Given the previous discussions, I think just dropping the PCI dependency is indeed the way to go. I'll send a v3.
