Il 11/03/2013 13:39, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > On 11 March 2013 11:54, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Il 11/03/2013 12:31, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>> On 11 March 2013 11:17, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> hw/arm11mpcore.c hw/arm/arm11mpcore.c >>> >>> Two devices but I can split them if you insist. >> >> These are little more than SoC containers, aren't they? > > They're container devices, yes. But why should container devices > go under hw/$ARCH ?
Because they don't really implement any logic, ideally a board should be a little more than a bunch of container devices. And boards go under hw/$ARCH. >>>> hw/kvm/arm_gic.c hw/arm/kvm/arm_gic.c >>> >>> If we're going to move kvm specific devices out of hw/kvm I'd >>> rather they just went in hw/. It's an implementation detail that >>> a device's back end is KVM specific, so kvm_arm_gic.c should go >>> alongside arm_gic.c. >> >> I moved them to hw/ARCH because they really depend on the host kernel. > > That's backwards. To the extent hw/ARCH is anything, it's stuff > specific to guest ARCH, not host ARCH. For KVM guest == host, so you cannot reuse them for any other architectures. But if there's disagreement, leaving them in hw/kvm/ is the best thing to do. Paolo
