Yea, that was going to be the gist of my main comment on your original email, once I got around to writing it... let's figure out where we want to go in the long run (seems like we already agreed about getting rid of Platform and having separate interrupt and PCI controller objects associated independently with System), and head that direction. If it's too much to bite off all at once, then we (or you) can identify some intermediate step(s), but there's no point in defining the intermediate step first before we know where we're headed and know that we can't make it there in one shot.
Steve On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote: > This might be a good opportunity to split the platform object into PCI > controller and interrupt controller objects. I'm thinking for > interrupts, I can create an IntDev which mirrors x86's but works with > the legacy Platform setup. > > On 09/30/11 02:13, Gabe Black wrote: > > If anybody is following the work I'm doing to integrate SE and FS, I'm > > going to start doing that in a new gem5.sefs repository which you can > > access in the same way as the main repository. I'll periodically merge > > things into it from the main tree, and occasionally merge back over. The > > idea is to minimize disruption to what people are trying to use day to > > day, but also so that we can actually get through this involved > > transition in a timeframe that's at all reasonable. You can still see > > what's going on, though, and there will be discussion about how I'm > > doing things on the list. The emails that get these rolling will tend to > > be shorter and just introduce the issue instead of getting into the meat > > of it like I have in the past. > > > > > > So, right now there's a platform pointer for all devices, and, because > > it sends and receives interrupts over the memory system, the x86 > > interrupt controller is a device. Having a platform object is not useful > > for the CPU side x86 interrupt controller, and also not useful for a > > number of other devices. I think it should the property should either be > > added individually where needed (for interrupt generating and PCI > > devices currently, I think) or put into an appropriate subclass which > > fits into the device class hierarchy somewhere. Preferences? If option > > two, where would the subclass go? > > > > Gabe > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
