On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:53:17PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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'/>
It's an ISA device. So the address should be:
<address type='isa' ioport='0x505'/>
?
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list