> -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de] > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:57 AM > To: Peter Maydell > Cc: Juan Quintela; KVM devel mailing list; qemu list; Yoder Stuart- > B08248; Alistair Francis; Peter Crosthwaite; Christoffer Dall > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenfda for 2014-04-01 > > > On 10.04.2014, at 17:52, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 10 April 2014 16:49, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > >> For the next call, I would propose to revive the "platform bus" > >> (aka: how to create non-PCI devices with -device) discussions > >> to make sure we're all on the same page. > > > > I rather suspect we are not :-) Do you have a link to > > the current proposals for prior reading? > > The only thing I could find is the old thread about my platform bus > approach (which Anthony disliked): > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-07/msg03614.html > > So from what I remember the plan moving forward was to have a special > device type similar to my platform bus devices that you can just create > using -device, no bus involved. The machine file would then loop through > them, interpret the "I sit at address x" and "I want interrupt number y" > fields to link them to whatever the machine model thinks is a good fit. > > The same way the machine model today has to have knowledge on each device > tree node type it generates, it would do the same for these devices. So > the machine has to have awareness of all the "funky special options" a > device tree node receives - the same as for any other device. Just that > in this case it wouldn't be able to hardcode them, but have to generate > them on the fly when it sees a device in the object tree.
Another link that may help from a call we had back in Sept: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2013-September/005532.html Stuart
