On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:26:09PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:27:11AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > On 19.11.2012, at 23:51, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 05:34:12PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 13.11.2012, at 03:47, David Gibson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <[email protected]>
> > >>>
> > >>> In future (with VFIO) we will have multiple PCI host bridges on
> > >>> pseries. Each one needs a unique LIOBN (IOMMU id). At the moment we
> > >>> derive these from the pci domain number, but the whole notion of
> > >>> domain numbers on the qemu side is bogus and in any case they're not
> > >>> actually uniquely allocated at this point.
> > >>>
> > >>> This patch, therefore uses a simple sequence counter to generate
> > >>> unique LIOBNs for PCI host bridges.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <[email protected]>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[email protected]>
> > >>
> > >> I don't really like the idea of having a global variable just
> > >> because our domain ID generation seems to not work as
> > >> expected. Michael, any comments here?
> > >
> > > Well, the patch I sent which changed domain id generation was
> > > ignored. In any case, as I said, the whole concept of domain numbers
> >
> > Michael?
>
> This is user visible, right?
> So IMHO we should have the user specify LIOBN through a property,
> rather than assign what's essentially a random value.
Well, I can implement an override through a property, which could be
useful in some circumstances. But we still need to have qemu generate
unique defaults, rather than forcing it to be specified in every case.
> For ACPI, domain number can go into _SEG method -
> this is what linux seems to use to assign domain numbers
> so if we do this things match.
I don't follow.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
