On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 11/16/2015 12:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/2015 11:10, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
What would you lose? Hotplug?
Without the bridge? Yes. However the user can add it manually the
pci-bridge and have it anyway.
Ok, I guess that's more or less acceptable. It's still ugly however, to
the point that I wonder if we should rename the device and call the old
one a failed experiment.
I guess we can rename the pxb to extra-root or something, but in this way
will have a deprecated/duplicated device to support and kill in the future.
Why not use the compat property as it is?
Again, the command line *remains* the same, the difference is where the
devices associated with the pxb will land: on the secondary bus (for QEMU < 2.5)
or on the root bus itself (QEMU >= 2.5).
I know is guest visible, but the guest will see one of them depending on the
machine type.
Regarding the splitting of pxb into 2 devices (pci/pcie), I have nothing
against it,
but because the implementation is *exactly* the same I think we should gain more
by maintaining one device.
Thanks,
Marcel
Yes, I think you want a new "pci-extender" device which is just the extender.
Then existing pxb will create both it and the bridge behind it.
Maybe creating pxb which is extender+bridge was a mistake, I don't know,
but we shipped it in QEMU so we support it.