On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 11:02 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 10:50:02 +0200 > Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > <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. I don't think it makes a lot of difference, but it doesn't make it any more confusing either, so I'm okay with changing it :) > > > > 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.) Cool. Boris, are you going to post a v2 squashing in all proposed changes? -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
