On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 09:48:26PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 10:04 +0100, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> > Allow the virtio_uml device to be probed from the devicetree so that
> > sub-devices can be specified using the standard virtio bindings, for
> > example:
> >
> > virtio@1 {
> > compatible = "virtio,uml";
> > socket-path = "i2c.sock";
> > virtio-device-id = <0x22>;
> >
>
> Given this, maybe it should modify
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/virtio-device.yaml? Or actually
> add a new Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/uml.yaml I guess?
>
> +Rob, because I'm not really into any of this.
>
> Also, I'm not even sure we should/need to document the DT bits that are
> basically only used for testing in the first place?
I wasn't sure either, but Rob was OK with not documenting some other
bindings which are only used for testing[0], so I assumed that that
applied here too:
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/5baa1ae6.1c69fb81.847f2.3ab1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Also, DT bindings are supposed to be generic and based on what the
hardware has, but here we have no hardware and something very Linux and
UML-specific.
> Code looks good to me.
Thanks!
