On 02/10/2011 09:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386:
2) get rid of the entire concept of machines. Creating a i440fx is
essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine.
Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386?
The concept of a machine model seems a pretty obvious one
for ARM boards, for instance, and I'm not sure we'd gain much
by having i386 be different to the other architectures...
Yes, it makes a lot of sense, I just don't know the component names as
well so bear with me :-)
There are two types of Versatile machines today, Versatile/AB and
Versatile/PB. They are both made with the same core, ARM926EJ-S, with
different expansions.
So you would model arm926ej-s as the chipset and then build up the
machines by modifying parameters of the chipset (like the board id)
and/or adding different components on top of it.
A good way to think about what I'm proposing is that machine->init
really should be a constructor for a device object.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
-- PMM
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
