On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 04:49:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 July 2018 at 16:45, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 30 June 2018 at 10:13, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The ARMv7-M code is largely similar to what other M Profile CPUs need. > >> Extract the common M Profile aspects into the ARMMProfileState base > >> class. ARMv6-M will inherit from this class in the following patch. > >> > >> It might be possible to make ARMv6-M the base class of ARMv7-M, but it > >> seems cleaner to have an M Profile base class instead of saying an > >> "ARMv7-M is an ARMv6-M". > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > > > > This makes sense, I guess (though it currently leaves us in the > > odd position that we have separate a object for v6m, but the v7m > > object handles both v7m and v8m...) > > ...though I guess the counter-argument is that the only thing that > the v7m object is doing that v6m doesn't want is creating > the bitbanding device, and in fact bitbanding is optional in v7m > (you can configure a Cortex-M3 without it). So maybe we should > instead just have a QOM property to let you turn off the > bitbanding ?
Okay, we can do that. So how about a single ARMMProfileState class for v6, v7, and v8? Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
