On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 16:07 +0100, Ján Tomko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 02:44:05PM +0000, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > > On 12.02.2019 17:37, Ján Tomko wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 02:31:47PM +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > > > > Diff from v1 [1]: > > > > ================= > > > > - expose the device as serial device instead of channel in config > > > > > > > > I use isa-debugcon name becase libvirt passes these names to qemu as-is > > > > so I don't want to make exception for this device. > > > > > > There should be no pressure to maintain the 1:1 mapping. > > > For QEMU, the devices need to be represented in single namespace, so > > > they have to include the bus. In libvirt, we already have the serial > > > type and the <address> element. It does not have to be duplicated in the > > > model name as well. Note that the <address> element is not automatically added for ISA devices, so that specific duplication is not present. > > Yeah. But we already have models like isa-serial, usb-serial etc. And thus > > we don't need map libvirt models to qemu models i.e. internally > > we use virDomainChrSerialTargetModelTypeToString to generates names for > > qemu. It would be odd if I start to use map just for debugcon now. > > My point is that the internal implementation is not relevant here > (we do map XML attributes to QEMU devices elsewhere, see > qemuDeviceVideo), it's the XML that matters. > > The 'usb-serial', 'pci-serial', 'isa-serial' models are all a generic > repetition of the target type, all of those are IMO better than > <model name='serial'/> or <model name='generic'/> > > However > <target type='isa-serial'> > <model name='debugcon'/> > </target> > looks better to me than > <target type='isa-serial'> > <model name='isa-debugcon'/> > </target> We are consistently using the QEMU device name as the model attribute for <serial> devices, so I don't really see a compelling reason to start adding inconsistencies now... -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
