On 09/02/2011 10:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 03:26:01PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 09/01/2011 03:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> That's a very rich interface, and easy to get wrong.
>>> AFAIK the only reason vfio uses read/write for PCI was to avoid inventing
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 03:26:01PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 03:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > That's a very rich interface, and easy to get wrong.
> > AFAIK the only reason vfio uses read/write for PCI was to avoid inventing
> > a custom interface. But if you do, it looks like
On 09/01/2011 03:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> That's a very rich interface, and easy to get wrong.
> AFAIK the only reason vfio uses read/write for PCI was to avoid inventing
> a custom interface. But if you do, it looks like a set of ioctls would
> be much easier? You can even fit the existi
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:51:20PM +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> Alex Graf, Scott Wood, and I met last week to try to flesh out
> some details as to how vfio could work for non-PCI devices,
> like we have in embedded systems. This most likely will
> require a different kernel driver than vf
On 08/29/2011 11:55 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Thanks for the example. Is it always the case that you need a path and
> an index? If so, why are they separate sub-regions instead of combined
> into a DT_INFO sub-region?
You'll always need both. DTPATH was put into a separate subrecord
because
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 18:14 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 05:46 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:58 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 08/29/2011 02:51 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:51 +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> The device in
On 08/29/2011 05:46 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:58 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 08/29/2011 02:51 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:51 +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
The device info records following the file header have the following
re
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:58 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 02:51 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:51 +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> >> The device info records following the file header have the following
> >> record types each with content encoded in a record s
On 08/29/2011 02:51 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:51 +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>> The device info records following the file header have the following
>> record types each with content encoded in a record specific way:
>>
>> REGION - describes an addressable addres
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:51 +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> Alex Graf, Scott Wood, and I met last week to try to flesh out
> some details as to how vfio could work for non-PCI devices,
> like we have in embedded systems. This most likely will
> require a different kernel driver than vfio-- fo
On 08/29/2011 02:04 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 11:51 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>> Instead of config space fixed at 0xf, we would propose
>> a header and multiple 'device info' records at offset 0x0 that would
>> encode everything that user space needs to know about
>> the devic
On 08/29/2011 11:51 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Alex Graf, Scott Wood, and I met last week to try to flesh out
some details as to how vfio could work for non-PCI devices,
like we have in embedded systems. This most likely will
require a different kernel driver than vfio-- for now we are
call
Alex Graf, Scott Wood, and I met last week to try to flesh out
some details as to how vfio could work for non-PCI devices,
like we have in embedded systems. This most likely will
require a different kernel driver than vfio-- for now we are
calling it "dtio" (for device tree I/O) as there is no wa
13 matches
Mail list logo
