Am 26.06.2012 05:18, schrieb Evgeny Voevodin: > On 25.06.2012 16:00, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 25.06.2012 13:46, schrieb Evgeny Voevodin: >>> On 25.06.2012 13:24, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>> Am 25.06.2012 09:55, schrieb Oleg Ogurtsov: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Ogurtsov<o.ogurt...@samsung.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs | 1 + >>>>> hw/exynos4210.c | 8 + >>>>> hw/exynos4210_rtc.c | 607 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 3 files changed, 616 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>> create mode 100644 hw/exynos4210_rtc.c >>>> This RTC like many other Exynos devices has no dependency on the CPU. I >>>> have a patch in preparation that moves such devices from >>>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs to hw/Makefile.objs. >>>> I don't object to this patch, not even minor style nits spotted, >>>> compliment, but if you have to respin for some reason, it would be nice >>>> if you could consider that improvement. >>> These devices are SOC specific and this SOC is based on ARM only. >>> Do we really need to move them? >> For one, they do not need to be rebuilt when cpu.h changes and they >> should get the usual device poisoning for proper modeling. >> For another, someone on IRC started work on an armeb-softmmu, for which >> we would probably not want to compile in the Exynos devices. Or if we >> do, we certainly don't want to compile everything twice (cf. xilinx). >> >> If devices are ARM-specific and need access to the CPU (e.g., machines, >> PICs) then according to Paolo they should be placed in hw/arm/ with the >> new scheme. I'm trying to stay away from moving other people's files >> around, but the Makefile changes are pretty non-intrusive and can go >> through arm-devs.next. >> >> Cheers, >> Andreas >> > > Oh, I see. Should we place this device to hw/Makefile.objs in v2?
That would've been nice, but I'll do it as a follow-up now. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg