"Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote: >> On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >>On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmio be just >> >>>another bus, like a pci bus, and another binding, like the virtio-pci >> >>>binding? >> >>(a) the current code is really not very nice because it's not >> >>actually a proper set of QOM/qdev devices >> >>(b) unlike PCI, you can't create sysbus devices on the >> >>command line, because they don't correspond to a user >> >>pluggable bit of hardware. We don't want users to have to know >> >>an address and IRQ number for each virtio-mmio device (especially >> >>since these are board specific); instead the board can create >> >>and wire up transport devices wherever is suitable, and the >> >>user just creates the backend (which is plugged into the virtio bus). >> >> >> >>-- PMM >> >This is what I am saying: create your own bus and put >> >your devices there. Allocate resources when you init >> >a device. >> > >> >Instead you seem to want to expose a virtio device as two devices to >> >user - if true this is not reasonable. >> > >> The modifications will be transparent to the user, as we will keep >> virtio-x-pci devices. > > So there are three ways to add virtio pci devices now. > Legacy -device virtio-net-pci, legacy legacy -net nic.model=virtio > and the new one with two devices. > If yes it's not transparent, it's user visible. > Or did I misunderstand? > > Look we can have a virtio network device on a PCI bus. > A very similar device can be created on XXX bus, and > we can and do share a lot of code. > This makes it two devices? Why not 4? > One for TX one for RX one for control one for PCI. > I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas ...
Devices != things users need to worry about. The documented way to create network devices is completely different than any possible syntax you can conjure up with -device. Really, -device is not something users should have to deal with--ever. It's a low level API, not a UI. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- > MST
