On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:00, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15 October 2013 15:58, Tom Sutcliffe <tom.sutcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Thumbs up from me testing on Arndale. My only issue is that virt and vexpress-a15 add virtio-mmio devices in the opposite order to each other, for the same set of -device command line arguments. It would avoid future headaches if we could have these behave the same. My preference would be for the virt behaviour, as the -device order matches the order in which the guest Linux kernel adds them to /dev (for virtio-blk-devices at least). > > Oh yes, I'd forgotten you mentioned that. Did anybody ever > track down *why* the kernel is reading the device tree > backwards? Not me :) I assume it's inserting into a linked list at some point by repeatedly replacing the head element (which would reverse the order) but where it's doing that, whether it's intentional, and what would break if it were changed I couldn't say. > (PS: I'd appreciate it if you didn't drop the qemu-devel cc.) My mistake! Tom _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
