On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 04:27, Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > What is this using the exynos4210 USB device for? That > > > is definitely not correct for a generic board. > > > > > Checked the code: > > #define TYPE_SYS_BUS_EHCI "sysbus-ehci-usb" > > #define TYPE_EXYNOS4210_EHCI "exynos4210-ehci-usb" > > #define TYPE_TEGRA2_EHCI "tegra2-ehci-usb" > > #define TYPE_PPC4xx_EHCI "ppc4xx-ehci-usb" > > #define TYPE_FUSBH200_EHCI "fusbh200-ehci-usb" > > > > The first one seems only a parent type, not a general instance, cannot > > be used directly. > > The other four are specific instances using the first as parent type, > > one of them can be chosen to use. > > That is my understanding, any comments, or do we need to implement one > > which seems generic? > > I think what we *really* want is sysbus-xhci-generic. > > That'll be a bit more work though as xhci core and xhci pci needs to be > splitted, simliar to how it was done for ehci in commit > 5010d4dc618b6b8e7c21129c487c06f6493f71fc (and related patches). > > Or just plug qemu-xhci into a pcie slot. Not sure which would be closer > to physical hardware. >
We don't need XHCI especially, EHCI is perfectly fine as well. This is mostly about ensuring that the emulated hardware spans the space of what we encounter on real hardware, and non-PCIE SATA and USB controllers is something we see often. So I could live with MMIO SATA and PCI USB as well, but I'd prefer it if we could have both MMIO.
