On Sunday 09 May 2010 21:11:17 Alexander Graf wrote: > Sebastian Herbszt wrote: > > The ICH6 AHCI implementation submitted by Chong is an all-in-one > > attempt (ahci.c). > > It includes all needed parts of the ICH6, AHCI, SATA and ATA > > specification. > > The code in hw/ide/* on the other hand is split (or could be split) > > into smaller parts like > > port based and bus master access, IDE and ATA core. > > I think it might be reasonable to split ahci.c into ICH6, AHCI and > > SATA parts and strip the > > limited ATA support and reuse it from the ide core. > > This would give us something like the following: > > > > hw/ide/piix.c (PIIX3 and PIIX4) > > hw/ide/pci.c and core.c (IDE, BM) > > hw/ata-core.c (ATA) > > hw/sata/ich6.c (ICH6) > > hw/sata-core.c (SATA) > > hw/ahci-core.c (AHCI) > > > > Should this be a goal or am i over-engineering here? > > [CC'ing Tejun - he volunteered to help out on this topic as well] > > I think there's no need to split sata and ahci. > Apart from that, I think we should take things incrementally. For now > there's no need to split IDE further until we hit a technical limit. I > have yet to see a patch trying to reuse the IDE command processing, so > depending on how the respective person implements that, I'm open to > suggenstions. > > So as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer to model things after they're > developed. That way we know the pitfalls.
You missed Sebastians point. His question is related to software design. Christoph -- ---to satisfy European Law for business letters: Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach b. Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Andrew Bowd, Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
