On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:27:58AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 11/07/2014 11:08, Andrew Jones ha scritto:
> >>> lib/arm/virtio.c
> >>>
> >>> where virtio_bind is in lib/arm/virtio.c.
> >>>
> >Well, virtio_bind will still need to be in lib/virtio.c, but just as
> >a wrapper to arch_virtio_bind.
>
> Ok, that's just a naming thing.
>
> >And, I'm inclined to keep virtio_bind_busses
> >in arm's arch_virtio_bind.
>
> Why? To support virtio-pci in the future? It seems like a good thing to
> have (future support for virtio-pci) but even then you'd have only two tests
> and that's already the exception. The common case would be just one. You
> could write that as
>
> struct virtio_device *arch_virtio_bind(u32 devid)
> {
> struct virtio_device *vdev;
>
> vdev = arch_virtio_mmio_bind(devid);
> if (!vdev)
> vdev = arch_virtio_pci_bind(devid);
> return vdev;
> }
>
> (I don't see kvm-unit-tests using ACPI in the future. Having DT+ACPI x
> mmio+pci would be a good reason to have the array, but even then it's
Yes, that was the reason.
> premature and these are unit tests not an OS...).
But, true and true. I guess I'll drop the table for now.
drew
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
