[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification
From: |
Blue Swirl |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:06:04 +0000 |
2010/12/11 Gleb Natapov <address@hidden>:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 08:02:23PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 05:19:01PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> > >> What should we do with
>> > >> address@hidden vs address@hidden
>> > > There is no available IDE OF binding spec, so I when with the way
>> > > OpenBIOS reports ata on qemu-x86. I have no idea what 600 in
>> > > address@hidden
>> > > may mean, but looking at g3_beige_300.html there is no such node there
>> > > and looking at any other device tree in
>> > > http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/
>> > > I haven't found one that use this kind of addressing for pci-ata.
>> > > http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/g3bw_400.html for
>> > > instance has address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/ata-4.
>> > > address@hidden kind of
>> > > addressing is used by devices on mac-io bus which I do not think we
>> > > emulate in qemu. So it looks like OpneBIOS is wrong here.
>> >
>> > We have PMAC IDE, but this device is CMD646, so mac-io bus addressing
>> > rules should not be used.
>> >
>> So you agree that OpenBIOS is wrong here?
>>
>> > In this tree there are two disks connected to CMD646, named
>> > /address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/ata-4/disk and
>> > /address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/ata-4/address@hidden:
>> > http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/g4_pci_350.html
>> You are saying that qemu creates paths like:
>> /address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden
>> /address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden
>>
>> I do not understand why qemu creates node address@hidden It should be
>> address@hidden
>> according to the code. I'll look at why unit-address is incorrect for
>> the node. But assuming that this problem is fixed then paths created by
>> qemu is very similar to the paths in g4_pci_350.html. It looks like in
>> g4_pci_350.html they omit unit address if it is zero.
>>
> Ah the problem is that we have not qdevified mac io bus. Since first to
> ide disks are automatically attached to mac-io bus device paths for them
> are incorrect. Next two ide devices will be attached to CMD646 and qemu
> will generate correct device paths for them:
>
> qemu-system-ppc -drive if=none,id=hda,file=/dev/null -device
> ide-drive,drive=hda,bootindex=1
> -drive if=none,id=cd,file=/dev/null -device ide-drive,drive=cd,bootindex=0
> -nographic -drive
> if=none,id=hdb,file=/dev/null -device
> ide-drive,drive=hdb,bus=ide.0,bootindex=2 -drive
> if=none,id=hdc,file=/dev/null -device
> ide-drive,drive=hdc,bus=ide.0,bootindex=3
> adding '/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden' at
> index 0
> adding '/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden' at
> index 1
> adding '/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden' at
> index 2
> adding '/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden/address@hidden' at
> index 3
But why is the path almost the same as CMD646, shouldn't 'address@hidden' be
different since the PCI device is not the same?
> So the fix is to qdevify mac io bus.
OK.
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv8 07/16] Add get_fw_dev_path callback for system bus., (continued)
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv8 07/16] Add get_fw_dev_path callback for system bus., Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/08
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv8 06/16] Add get_fw_dev_path callback to IDE bus., Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/08
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv8 13/16] Change fw_cfg_add_file() to get full file path as a parameter., Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/08
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv8 10/16] Add get_fw_dev_path callback for usb bus., Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/08
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv8 01/16] Introduce fw_name field to DeviceInfo structure., Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/08
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Blue Swirl, 2010/12/11
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/11
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Blue Swirl, 2010/12/11
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification,
Blue Swirl <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Gleb Natapov, 2010/12/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, 2010/12/11
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Blue Swirl, 2010/12/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, 2010/12/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Andreas Färber, 2010/12/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, 2010/12/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Alexander Graf, 2010/12/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Andreas Färber, 2010/12/17
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification, Blue Swirl, 2010/12/11