Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 1/2] libxl: Introduce functions to add and remove USB devices to an HVM guest

[Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:51:46PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:45 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 24/04/13 14:51, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 14:32 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > >
> > >> There's also the translation of "AUTO" protocol into PV or HVM, and
> > > This made me wonder, how is libxl_device_usb_protocol different from the
> > > type of the domain? Can you (or is the intention) use PV with an HVM
> > > domain? I suppose DEVICEMODEL is HVM only?
> > 
> > The intention is to allow HVM guests to use either DEVICEMODEL or PV as 
> > protocols.
> > 
> > > Is "protocol" really the right word for this? I'd half expect it to mean
> > > USB 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0. For NICS we call this Enum libxl_nic_type. FWIW
> > 
> > But we're already using 'type' for the device type. :-)
> > 
> > I think for nics it makes sense to call it a 'type', as for NICs we 
> > refer to the *emulated device* as a NIC, or the PV device as a NIC, 
> > which is then (virtually) plugged into a bridge somewhere.  But in this 
> > case I don't think it makes sense, as it's the actual host device you 
> > care about, and the way the guest talks to it is either via PV or qemu.  
> > "Protocol" may not be the very best option, but at least it gives you 
> > the idea of a conduit.
> 
> It's more like a "method" then?
> 

"protocol" reminded me about something.. when using devicemodel/qemu method,
do we currently allow specifying if the usb device should be connected to 
usb2 (ehci) or usb3 (xhci) virtual controller?


-- Pasi


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel