On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 10:50:02 +0200 Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/16/20 6:14 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:56:18 +0200 > > Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Improving the zPCI example by choosing more distinct values and > >> adding explanation for fid. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> docs/pci-addresses.rst | 15 ++++++++------- > >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/docs/pci-addresses.rst b/docs/pci-addresses.rst > >> index 7c8e9edd73..4492389da5 100644 > >> --- a/docs/pci-addresses.rst > >> +++ b/docs/pci-addresses.rst > >> @@ -176,14 +176,14 @@ In the simplest case, the following XML snippet > >> <model name='pci-bridge'/> > >> <target chassisNr='1'/> > >> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x01' function='0x0'> > >> - <zpci uid='0x0002' fid='0x00000001'/> > >> + <zpci uid='0x0001' fid='0x00000000'/> > > > > Why this change? The pci-bridge does not show up in the guest anyway. > My assumption was that uid and fid for this would be autogenerated. > Since uid 0x0001 and fid 0x00000000 have been freed up due to the change > below this would be the autogenerated set. If that makes the XML look saner, no objection. > > > > >> </address> > >> </controller> > >> <interface type='bridge'> > >> <source bridge='virbr0'/> > >> <model type='virtio'/> > >> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x01' slot='0x01' function='0x0'> > >> - <zpci uid='0x0001' fid='0x00000000'/> > >> + <zpci uid='0x0007' fid='0x00000003'/> > >> </address> > >> </interface> > >> > >> @@ -191,21 +191,22 @@ will result in the following in a Linux guest: > >> > >> :: > >> > >> - 0001:00:00.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device > >> + 0007:00:00.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device > >> > >> Note that the PCI bridge is not visible in the guest; s390x always has a flat > >> -topology. > >> +topology. Also ``fid`` does not define slot or function of the PCI address. > > > > I find the sentence regarding 'fid' confusing. Maybe instead move up > > the explanation from below regarding uid and fid? > > > > "The PCI address in the guest is generated from..." > > > Lets join your proposal with Andreas and move his rewrite up to here. > Like: > ...topology. > The PCI address in the guest is generated from the information provided > via the ``zpci`` element: more specifically, ``uid`` is used as the PCI > domain.``fid`` doesn't appear in the PCI address itself, but it will be > used in sysfs (``/sys/bus/pci/slots/$fid/...``). Sounds good. (Also the rest of the changes.)
