On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:37:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 July 2015 at 20:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
> >
> > Since we have one for virtio, it seems neater to use that
> > rather than LNRO. For the device ID, use 103F which is a le
On 29 July 2015 at 20:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
>
> Since we have one for virtio, it seems neater to use that
> rather than LNRO. For the device ID, use 103F which is a legacy ID that
> isn't used in virtio PCI spec - seems to make sense since
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >>
> >> Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMU"? Something I missed?
> >
> > So that guests that bind to
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 05:21:51PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>
>
> On 2015/7/30 16:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2015/7/30 3:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
> >
On 30 July 2015 at 10:37, G Gregory wrote:
> On 30 July 2015 at 10:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMU"? Something I missed?
>>>
On 30 July 2015 at 10:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMU"? Something I missed?
>>
>> So that guests that bind to this interface will
On 2015/7/30 16:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2015/7/30 3:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
>>>
>> But virtio-mmio is not a PCI device, it's a platform device.
>
> Yes. ACP
On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>
>> Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMU"? Something I missed?
>
> So that guests that bind to this interface will work fine with non QEMU
> implementations of virtio-mm
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>
>
> On 2015/7/30 3:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
> >
> But virtio-mmio is not a PCI device, it's a platform device.
Yes. ACPI spec 5.0 says:
A valid PNP ID must be of the
On 2015/7/30 3:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
>
But virtio-mmio is not a PCI device, it's a platform device.
Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMU"? Something I missed?
> Since we have one for virtio, it seems neater to use that
> rathe
ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
Since we have one for virtio, it seems neater to use that
rather than LNRO. For the device ID, use 103F which is a legacy ID that
isn't used in virtio PCI spec - seems to make sense since virtio-mmio is
a legacy device but we don't know the correct d
11 matches
Mail list logo
