On 11/16/2015 05:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
What would you lose? Hotplug?
Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it
On 11/17/2015 02:26 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Marcel Apfelbaum writes:
On 11/17/2015 10:15 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Marcel Apfelbaum writes:
On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
What would you lose? Hotplug?
Without the bri
Marcel Apfelbaum writes:
> On 11/17/2015 10:15 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Marcel Apfelbaum writes:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>> What would you lose? Hotplug?
>
> Without the bridge? Yes. Howev
On 11/17/2015 10:15 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Marcel Apfelbaum writes:
On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
What would you lose? Hotplug?
Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it manually the
pci-bridge and have it anyw
Marcel Apfelbaum writes:
> On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
What would you lose? Hotplug?
>>>
>>> Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it manually the
>>> pci-bridge and have it anyway.
>>
>> Ok, I guess that's m
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> >>>What would you lose? Hotplug?
> >>
> >>Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it manually the
> >>pci-bridge and
On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
What would you lose? Hotplug?
Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it manually the
pci-bridge and have it anyway.
Ok, I guess that's more or less acceptable. It's still ugly however, to
On 16/11/2015 11:39, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>> Yes, I think you want a new "pci-extender" device which is just the
>> extender.
>> Then existing pxb will create both it and the bridge behind it.
>> Maybe creating pxb which is extender+bridge was a mistake, I don't know,
>> but we shipped it in Q
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:39:45PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 12:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> >>On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>
On 16/11/2015 11:02, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> Actually the command line would work. The devices will be placed on the
> root bus
> instead of the pci bridge bus. The trick here is that we name the bus
> the devices
> will be attached to by the pxb id.
> - When we have the bridge -> the pxb id w
On 11/16/2015 10:40 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 15/11/2015 16:39, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
Addressed Gerd Hoffmann comments:
- Added x-enable-internal-bridge compat property to keep the PCI
bridge for older machine to avoid breaking migration.
This will break PXB command lines written
The PXB host bridge provides a way to have multiple PCI hierarchies (PCI root
buses).
This series is porting the PXB device to Q35 machines by:
- removing the internal pci-bridge
- make the PXB bus PCIe for Q35, while it remains PCI for i440fx.
This approach works because the Root Complexes are
On 11/16/2015 12:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:39:45PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 11/16/2015 12:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015
On 11/16/2015 12:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
What would you lose? Hotplug?
Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it
On 16/11/2015 10:52, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 10:40 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/11/2015 16:39, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>>> Addressed Gerd Hoffmann comments:
>>> - Added x-enable-internal-bridge compat property to keep the PCI
>>> bridge for older machine to avoi
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>> What would you lose? Hotplug?
>
> Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it manually the
> pci-bridge and have it anyway.
Ok, I guess that's more or less acceptable. It's still ugly however, to
the point that I wonder if we should ren
On 11/16/2015 12:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:02, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
Actually the command line would work. The devices will be placed on the
root bus
instead of the pci bridge bus. The trick here is that we name the bus
the devices
will be attached to by the pxb id.
- Wh
On 15/11/2015 16:39, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> Addressed Gerd Hoffmann comments:
> - Added x-enable-internal-bridge compat property to keep the PCI
>bridge for older machine to avoid breaking migration.
This will break PXB command lines written for "-M pc" in QEMU <= 2.5.
Technically there
On 11/16/2015 11:56 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 10:52, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 11/16/2015 10:40 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 15/11/2015 16:39, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
Addressed Gerd Hoffmann comments:
- Added x-enable-internal-bridge compat property to keep the PCI
19 matches
Mail list logo
