Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 4/8] Store IDE bus id in IDEBus structure for easy access.

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:04:05PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
>> >> >> There has been quite some discussion on "canonical path" on the list,
>> >> >> but no consensus.  Ironically, one of the places where we got stuck was
>> >> >> ISA.  You cut right through that, so that's progress.  Maybe people
>> >> >> aren't looking ;)
>> >> > That is funny since the problem was already solved looong time ago. Just
>> >> > look at Open Firmware device path. They are capable of addressing all
>> >> > devices just fine, ISA devices included. What specific problem you had
>> >> > with ISA bus? 
>> >> 
>> >> Lack of consensus.  I was in favour of using I/O base, just like you do.
>> >> There were worries about ISA devices not using any I/O ports.
>> > There is a solution for that problem for almost 15 years and we are
>> > still looking for consensus on qemu list?! Here is ISA device binding
>> > spec for Open Firmware: http://playground.sun.com/1275/bindings/isa/isa0_4d.ps 
>> > If ISA device have no IO ports MMIO is used.
>> 
>> Precedence should promote consensus, but it can't replace it.  If you
>> can push the list to consensus, more power to you.
> I do not see disagreement right now :) You are saying you agree. Blue
> Swirl asked me to use Open Firmware so I assume he agrees to. So who is
> against and what are his arguments?

Start here:

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-06/msg01618.html