On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:51:14PM +0100, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 02/10/2011 12:13 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > >Which spec? Even in this discussion we completely mixed different > >things. 440FX is not a chipset. > > Yes, it is. It's a single silicon package with a defined pinout. > If you don't believe me, re-read the spec. > > It's a MCM with the PIIX3 being internally connected. The > connection between the i440fx and PIIX3 happens to be PCI but that's > not always the case. Sometimes it's a proprietary bus. > Which one? 29054901.pdf describes memory controller and PCI host bridge only. > >Again you probably mean PIIX3. Even then removing unused ide will free > >one more PCI slot for my cool virtio disk array. The things is, from > >code point of view, it does not cost you extra to allow composition of > >ide since it is just a regular PCI device and we need to support composing > >those anyway. > > If this is useful, and it doesn't break guests, you can always do > -device i440fx,ide=off. However, it's an exception where we're > deviating from how hardware works. > I don't care how command line will look like, but I do not see how you will support ide=off without device composition unless you put ad-hoc ifs all over your i440fx device code. And I don't understand what do you mean by saying that this is not how hardware works. Presence or absence of PCI device does not change how hardware works. > And that's okay, but the base modelling ought to follow real > hardware closely with deviations being the exception. > You keep saying this without explaining why. But with device composition you will have exactly that, you will compose real chipsets using config files, not code. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
