On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote: >> > >> > I'd like to see a comment about this being for Xen in here, and I >> > wonder if there are other places where we might have to worry about the >> > Xen implementation. In that case, setting a flag in dev_priv when we >> > don't find the PCH where we expect would be a good idea too. >> > >> >> I can add a comment here if the overall idea is acceptable to you. >> But there is already a comment mentioning that the ISA bridge check is >> for virtualization: >> >> 404 /* >> 405 * The reason to probe ISA bridge instead of Dev31:Fun0 is to >> 406 * make graphics device passthrough work easy for VMM, that only >> 407 * need to expose ISA bridge to let driver know the real hardware >> 408 * underneath. This is a requirement from virtualization team. >> 409 */ >> >> > Ack on the general idea though; I'd like us to be able to run under Xen >> > without modification. >> > >> >> Stefano may be able to comment if it's feasible to achieve zero >> modification in this case. >> I believe this has something to do with getting rid of the PIIX3 >> device provided by qemu. >> >> But generally I think it's very hard to achieve perfect emulation. >> You can't always foresee what assumption a guest driver would make. >> Maybe we need some compromise. > > I meant that I'd like to see any other patches required for Xen get > merged, that way people won't have to patch their kernels for i915 > under Xen. Hi Jesse, I think I need to resend the patch with proper comment to have it formally accepted. Any guide line for formal patch submission? Do I need to start a separate thread?
