On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Gabriel Michael Black < [email protected]> wrote:
> One thing I don't agree with is that they should be associated with the > system object. It doesn't need to know how the PCI space is allocated or be > able to send interrupts to the CPU through the chipset's IO controller. It's true that the System object itself may not need to know these things, but we get a lot of simplicity out of having per-system objects associated with System, because then each device or whatever that does need to know about these per-system components can find them as long as they have a System pointer. I think in this situation it plays a role closer to a namespace than anything else. > Devices do, but moving radially outwards from the CPU they are (for the > most part) beyond the system object. Hmm? I think the System object logically encompasses everything that's part of the system, including devices... if not directly as parameters, then as the root of the configuration subtree. The only things that aren't under a System object are things that connect systems (right now the Etherlink is the only thing in that category). Steve _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
