On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:15:12AM -0500, chris wrote:
> My understanding of PVUSB is that it was only for PV domains though
> correct? Looked through the links and can't find anything confirming
> or denying that.
>
pvusb is not only for PV guests. It also works with HVM guests.
For both PV and HVM guests it requires the pvusb frontend driver in the guest
kernel.
For Windows the GPLPV drivers have pvusb frontend, but it's not in a working
state atm, afaik.
-- Pasi
> - chris
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:26:29PM -0500, Chris wrote:
> >> That makes sense however one would think USB 2.0 support would be a good
> >> feature to have. There's quite a bit of people looking to utilize pci
> >> passthrough and I'd imagine USB passthrough would be similarly useful
> >>
> >
> > That's why pvusb was developed.. it allows usb 2.0 speeds/functionality :)
> >
> > -- Pasi
> >
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:36 PM, "James Harper"
> >> <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder why it's limited to 1.1 i would imagine that is a hard coded
> >>>> limit but given a faster system shouldn't the emulation be faster?
> >>>> Who
> >>>> could shed more light on why?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Well if it talks to the device in '1.1 mode' then the limit will still
> >>> apply.
> >>>
> >>> At a guess, maybe the 1.1 hardware interface is a bit simpler? I
> >>> suspect that they already implemented USB 1.1 to support the mouse and
> >>> tablet interface, and passthrough was not much harder, but 2.0/3.0
> >>> implementation would have been a lot more work.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home