On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 04:25, Chris Laplante <ch...@laplante.io> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > Thanks for this patchset and especially for the work > > improving the qtest infrastructure. I've given my > > comments on the different patches, and in some cases > > reviewed-by tags. (Where I've given one of those, you should > > add it to your commit message for the relevant patch under > > your Signed-off-by: line, so that when you send the version > > 2 of the patchset we know that those parts are already > > reviewed and don't need re-examining. If I said "make > > some change; otherwise Reviewed-by" that means "make > > that minor change, and then you can add the tag, etc".) > > Thanks very much for the feedback and help! > > > Do you have the parts of this feature that use the DETECT > > signal in the POWER device, or have you not written those > > yet ? If you have them, you could send those too in v2. > > That part is halfway done, so I will work on finishing it before submitting > v2. Two questions regarding that (to potentially save us a v3): > > 1. The nRF51 POWER device overlaps with the memory maps of the CLOCK and MPU > devices. So I have created a CPM (CLOCK, POWER, MPU) device in hw/misc. Does > that sound reasonable naming-wise?
Yes, I think from QEMU's point of view the massive register overlap makes them a single device. The name sounds OK (give it the same kind of nrf51 prefix the rng device has). > 2. I also have some implementations for pieces of CLOCK, namely the > HFCLKSTART/HFCLKSTOP events and HFCLKSTARTED event. Should I include that in > this patch series, or would you prefer it in a separate series? It is > unrelated to DETECT and POWER. If you think they're ready to go in, and it doesn't make the series more than about 12-15 patches long, you can put them on the end of the series. If the patchset is starting to get a bit big then it might be easier to get the POWER/DETECT parts reviewed first. thanks -- PMM