qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [6490] Update #defines for PCI vendor and device IDs fr


From: Stuart Brady
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [6490] Update #defines for PCI vendor and device IDs from OpenBIOS and Linux
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:22:20 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 12:01:07PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Update #defines for PCI vendor and device IDs from OpenBIOS and Linux

Just a few questions...

> Modified: trunk/hw/grackle_pci.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/hw/grackle_pci.c    2009-01-30 20:39:41 UTC (rev 6489)
> +++ trunk/hw/grackle_pci.c    2009-02-01 12:01:04 UTC (rev 6490)
> @@ -154,10 +154,8 @@
>  
>  #if 0
>      /* PCI2PCI bridge same values as PearPC - check this */
> -    d->config[0x00] = 0x11; // vendor_id
> -    d->config[0x01] = 0x10;
> -    d->config[0x02] = 0x26; // device_id
> -    d->config[0x03] = 0x00;
> +    pci_config_set_vendor_id(d->config, PCI_VENDOR_ID_DEC);
> +    pci_config_set_device_id(d->config, PCI_DEVICE_ID_DEC_21154);

Isn't the DEC 21154 is a Tulip-compatible NIC, and not a PCI bridge?
Yes, 0x1011 is the Vendor ID for DEC, and 0x0026 is the Device ID for
the 21154, but what was actually intended here?

> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_IBM_OPENPIC2       0xffff
> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_APPLE_343S1201     0x0010
> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_APPLE_UNI_N_I_PCI  0x001e
> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_APPLE_UNI_N_PCI    0x001f
> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_APPLE_UNI_N_KEYL   0x0022
> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_REALTEK_RTL8029    0x8029
>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_REALTEK_8139       0x8139

It probably wouldn't hurt to mark IDs without a corresponding definition
in Linux's pci_ids.h with a comment...  (Also, RTL8029 vs. 8139?...)

> +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_QEMU               0x1234
> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_QEMU_VGA           0x1111

I gather 0x1234/0x1111 was originally chosen by Bochs.  Unfortunately,
it is apparently allocated to 'Technical Corp.'  Would it be possible
to use something less confusing instead?

Cheers,
-- 
Stuart Brady




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]