On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:46:53AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/04/2013 08:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> Dan, do you have any thoughts on the best representation to use? Or is > >> Hu's original proposal of: > >> > >> <pvpanic ioport='0x505'/> > > > > I'm not a fan of doing a special case attribute for 'ioport' - this is > > something something that should be part of an <address> element, since > > ioport numbers are a generic addressing concept for many devices. > > eg ISA serial / parallel ports have IRQ / IO ports IIUC. > > So something more like: > > <pvpanic> > <address type='ioport' slot='0x505'/> > </pvpanic> > > and introducing a new type='ioport' namespace into the <address> XML > since it is yet another numbering system for guest-visible addressing? Yes, I'm not sure I'd call the type 'ioport' - the address type reflects the bus/controller type that the device is associated with. What is the "bus" type that a pvpanic device is attached to ? Is it a ISA bus device, or is it a "platform" device or something else ? eg it might be appropriate to use <address type='platform' ioport='0x666'/> Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list