Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2 of 2] xl: Accept a list for usbdevice in config file

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 12:20 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM, George Dunlap
> <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>         qemu.git/vl.c suggests other options might include, "disk:",
>         "serial:", "net:" and "bt:"; other non-colon-including options
>         include "keyboard", "mouse", "wacom-tablet", and "braile".
>         
>         On the other hand, a number of these seem to require
>         supplementary options to work well; e.g., network and bt
>         (bluetooth) require one argument to hook up a USB device, and
>         another option to say how it's connected to what.
>         
>         It's also interesting to note that the KVM documentation
>         doesnt' mention using "-usb" and "-usbdevice" at all -- they
>         seem to prefer using "-device" to specify hubs &c.
> 
> Speaking of which, the KVM docs refer to "-usb" and "-usbdevice" as
> "legacy interfaces", which will only get you piix3.

This is a concern for other types of device too. We seem to invoke new
qemu with a mixture of legacy and new-style interfaces.

>   It seems like exposing the full capabilities of qemu would mean
> either 1) coming up with a full specifciation which we can then
> translate into qemu directives, as libvirt seems to do, or 2) just
> recommend people construct their own qemu command-line options to pass
> through.

Does libvirt let you care about topologies or just it just automatically
create a new USB controller for every N devices you add and hook things
up in some order?

> It's not 100% clear to me that 1 is actually less complicated from a
> user perspective in the long run than 2, and it's certainly a lot more
> work...
> 
>  -George
> 



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