On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 08:22:08PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > Ivan Mishonov wrote: > > > Yes, that makes sense. I'll try to find some time next week to redo my > > code and send another patch. Since my time for working on libvirt is > > very limited can you confirm that the LPC configuration should look like > > this: > > > > <controller type="isa-bridge" index="0"> > > <address type="pci" domain="0" bus="0" slot="NNN" function="0"/> > > </controller> > > This looks reasonable to me. However, it adds some corner cases we need to > handle: > > 1. I'm wondering if we should still default to 31 if this entry is not specified? > We can generate this entry when post-processing XML, but I'm not sure > what's the best way to handle upgrades for the existing domains... It depends if the BHyve driver is at a point where you consider stable upgrades important or not. It could be valid for you to just change the default to 31 if you think its better and upgrade stability is not required yet. > 2. According to bhyve(8) manual page, lpc is only supported on bus 0, so > need to add 'isa-bridge' specific validation to check that. If its only supported in 1 address, then arguably you don't need to add this at all - just fix the historically mistaken use of 31 in the code and leave it out of XML. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
