Il 20/03/2013 11:30, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> Basically I don't like the way your categorization scheme seems
> to be "kind of device, except for stuff in hw/ARCH which has
> a completely different rationale". I'm OK with hw/ARCH having
> board models, because that's really "kind of device", it'
On 20 March 2013 00:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> ARM is already quite good in that respect. However, until all
> architectures are converted cpu_*_init needs to remain because of
> user-mode targets (where the CPUs are created by common code, there is
> no board to encapsulate the target-specific d
Il 20/03/2013 00:44, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 19 March 2013 23:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> > Il 19/03/2013 23:34, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> >> On 19 March 2013 22:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> So, okay to put these in hw/arm and then I'll work on patches moving
>>> cpu_arm_init
On 19 March 2013 23:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/03/2013 23:34, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> On 19 March 2013 22:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> So, okay to put these in hw/arm and then I'll work on patches moving
>>> cpu_arm_init to a*mpcore.c?
>>
>> Wrong way round. If you can't put the cpu_ar
Il 19/03/2013 23:34, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 19 March 2013 22:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 19/03/2013 11:32, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> On 19 March 2013 10:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 19/03/2013 11:10, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> My point is that the QOM abstraction should en
On 19 March 2013 22:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/03/2013 11:32, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> On 19 March 2013 10:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 19/03/2013 11:10, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
My point is that the QOM abstraction should encapsulate the CPU
cores just like any other piec
Il 19/03/2013 11:32, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 19 March 2013 10:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 19/03/2013 11:10, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> Well, for the CPU to be a proper QOM object it should be exposing
>>> the IRQ/FIQ lines normally, not via the code in hw/arm/pic_cpu.c.
>>
>> That app
On 19 March 2013 10:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/03/2013 11:10, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> Well, for the CPU to be a proper QOM object it should be exposing
>> the IRQ/FIQ lines normally, not via the code in hw/arm/pic_cpu.c.
>
> That applies to everything else that was put in hw/ARCH. Ever
Il 19/03/2013 11:10, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 19 March 2013 09:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 18/03/2013 21:21, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> On 18 March 2013 20:05, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/03/2013 19:17, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> Shouldn't these containers also host the CPU
On 19 March 2013 09:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/03/2013 21:21, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> On 18 March 2013 20:05, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 18/03/2013 19:17, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> Shouldn't these containers also host the CPU device(s), rather than the
>> boards? And creat
Il 18/03/2013 21:21, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 18 March 2013 20:05, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 18/03/2013 19:17, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> Shouldn't these containers also host the CPU device(s), rather than the
> boards? And create them according to the num-cpu property? If so, th
On 18 March 2013 20:05, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/03/2013 19:17, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> > Shouldn't these containers also host the CPU device(s), rather than the
>>> > boards? And create them according to the num-cpu property? If so, they
>>> > would have to go in hw/arm.
>> Yes, ideal
Il 18/03/2013 19:17, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > Shouldn't these containers also host the CPU device(s), rather than the
>> > boards? And create them according to the num-cpu property? If so, they
>> > would have to go in hw/arm.
> Yes, ideally they should have the CPU devices in them too.
> R
On 18 March 2013 18:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/03/2013 19:11, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > So what is the better alternative? A new hw/container/?
>>
>> Maybe. Whatever it is, it should be a classification by kind
>> of device, so we can consistently sort by kind of device
>> and not part
Il 18/03/2013 19:11, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> > So what is the better alternative? A new hw/container/?
>
> Maybe. Whatever it is, it should be a classification by kind
> of device, so we can consistently sort by kind of device
> and not part by kind of device and part by target architecture.
On 18 March 2013 18:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/03/2013 18:38, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> On 18 March 2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> > hw/{ => arm}/a15mpcore.c | 0
>>> > hw/{ => arm}/a9mpcore.c| 0
>>> > hw/{ => arm}/arm11mp
Il 18/03/2013 18:38, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 18 March 2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> > hw/{ => arm}/a15mpcore.c | 0
>> > hw/{ => arm}/a9mpcore.c| 0
>> > hw/{ => arm}/arm11mpcore.c | 0
> Still no.
I
On 18 March 2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> hw/{ => arm}/a15mpcore.c | 0
> hw/{ => arm}/a9mpcore.c| 0
> hw/{ => arm}/arm11mpcore.c | 0
Still no.
-- PMM
18 matches
Mail list logo
