[libvirt] [PATCH v2 1/2] Introduce QEMU_CAPS_ARM_VIRT_PCI

[Cole Robinson]

On 06/22/2015 04:21 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 16:10:47 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> On 06/11/2015 02:40 AM, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>>> This capability specifies that "virt" machine on ARM has PCI controller. Enabled when version is at least 2.3.0.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin at samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>  src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 5 +++++
>>>  src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h | 1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
>>> index ca7a7c2..2eccc97 100644
>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
>>> @@ -285,6 +285,7 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virQEMUCaps, QEMU_CAPS_LAST,
>>>                "dea-key-wrap",
>>>                "pci-serial",
>>>                "aarch64-off",
>>> +              "arm-virt-pci",
>>>      );
>>>  
>>>  
>>> @@ -1330,6 +1331,10 @@ virQEMUCapsComputeCmdFlags(const char *help,
>>>          virQEMUCapsSet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_VNC_SHARE_POLICY);
>>>      }
>>>  
>>> +    if (version >= 2003000) {
>>> +        virQEMUCapsSet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_ARM_VIRT_PCI);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>>      return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h
>>> index b5a7770..3c1a8b9 100644
>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h
>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h
>>> @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ typedef enum {
>>>      QEMU_CAPS_DEA_KEY_WRAP       = 187, /* -machine dea_key_wrap */
>>>      QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_PCI_SERIAL  = 188, /* -device pci-serial */
>>>      QEMU_CAPS_CPU_AARCH64_OFF    = 189, /* -cpu ...,aarch64=off */
>>> +    QEMU_CAPS_ARM_VIRT_PCI       = 190, /* ARM 'virt' machine has PCI bus */
>>>  
>>>      QEMU_CAPS_LAST,                   /* this must always be the last item */
>>>  } virQEMUCapsFlags;
>>>
>>
>> ACK and pushed, tweaked to avoid the conflict with .git (since additions to
>> qemu_capabilities are always conflicting, it's better to get this in early)
> 
> It breaks syntax-check since the 'if' has a single line body with braces
> around it.
> 
> Also pushing a capabiltity without the code that will actually use it is
> not exactly a good idea since it might never be used if the next patch
> gets abandoned and since they are considered public we might be stuck
> with it forever.
> 

hmm sorry, I suck with syntax-check...

but WRT to this specific capability, I don't know how we won't end up using
it, so in this case I think it's pretty safe. But I won't push a check again
without it's accompanying usage.

- Cole