On 09/15/2017 09:27 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 18:50:29 +0200 > Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 09/14/2017 04:26 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:27:51 +0200 >>> Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>> +static Property ccw_tester_properties[] = { >>>> + DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cu_type", CcwTesterDevice, cu_type, >>>> + 0x3831), >>> >>> 0x4711 would be nice :) >> >> I don't understand the joke/pun/whatever if there is one, >> but I'm fine with changing this too. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4711 > > That's my default if I need a four-digit number :) > >> >>> >>> If we want to follow up on that testdev idea (and I think we should), >>> it might make sense to have a proper type reserve to prevent accidental >>> clashes. >> >> I agree. Although I would still keep the cu_type configurable, >> because it might make sense to test a particular 'real' driver >> (and not a test driver like here). I haven't really thought >> this through, but it was an idea I had while agonizing over >> not having a proper type reserved. >> >> I suppose you did something like that for virtio, or? I'm in dark >> when it comes to the question what process do we/I have to go to >> get a type,for example 0x4711, reserved. > > 4711 is more a joke :) It might be worth trying the same channels as > for virtio-ccw. > > Christian should know more about that.
Getting a new number was very easy (because it is attached to a machine type number). I I remember correctly, only numerical values are uses, so maybe we can use ffff as there will never be such a real value?