Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices?

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:41:49 +0200,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tuesday 03 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > However, one probably wants to think about what the heck one actually 
> > means with "virtualization" in the absence of a lot of this stuff.  PCI 
> > is probably the closest thing we have to a lowest common denominator for 
> > device detection.
> 
> I think that's true outside of s390, but a standardized virtual device
> interface should be able to work there as well. Interestingly, the
> s390 channel I/O also uses two 16 bit numbers to identify a device
> (type and model), just like PCI or USB, so in that light, we might
> be able to use the same number space for something entirely different
> depending on the virtual bus.

Even if we used those ids for cu_type and dev_type, it would still be
ugly IMO. It would be much cleaner to just define a very simple, easy
to implement virtual bus without dragging implementation details for
other types of devices around.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/