On 03/07/2011 01:58 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-03-07 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
command line.
I thought it was stated before that there is no guarantee on
On 2011-03-07 15:57, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/07/2011 01:58 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-03-07 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
command line.
I thought it was
On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
...
diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
index 60f8c42..feb8a7a 100644
--- a/hw/pc.h
+++ b/hw/pc.h
@@ -82,14 +82,23 @@ void isa_irq_handler(void *opaque, int n, int level);
#define PIT_FREQ 1193182
-typedef
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
...
diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
index 60f8c42..feb8a7a 100644
--- a/hw/pc.h
+++ b/hw/pc.h
@@ -82,14 +82,23 @@ void isa_irq_handler(void
On 2011-03-06 16:35, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
...
diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
index 60f8c42..feb8a7a 100644
--- a/hw/pc.h
+++ b/hw/pc.h
@@
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
On 2011-03-06 16:35, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
...
diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
On 2011-03-06 17:06, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
On 2011-03-06 16:35, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
On 2011-03-06 18:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2011 10:47 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
The PIT is not an ISA device. Modelling it as such is worse than
leaving it
unmodelled.
No. These days, PIT is part of Super I/O chip, which is accessed via
LPC bus. LPC is from software point of
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/06/2011 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
In the system we model, the PIT is part of the PIIX3. The right way to
model it is as a DeviceState that's no_user=1 and created as part of the
initialized of PIIX3 (for
On 03/06/2011 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
In the system we model, the PIT is part of the PIIX3. The right way to
model it is as a DeviceState that's no_user=1 and created as part of the
initialized of PIIX3 (for the PC at least).
LPC is still an expansion bus and it's primarily used for
On 2011-03-06 21:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2011 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
In the system we model, the PIT is part of the PIIX3. The right way to
model it is as a DeviceState that's no_user=1 and created as part of the
initialized of PIIX3 (for the PC at least).
LPC is still an
On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
command line.
I thought it was stated before that there is no guarantee on the
internal structure of our device tree as the user may explore it (as
long as it's stable for the
On 2011-03-07 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
command line.
I thought it was stated before that there is no guarantee on the
internal structure of our device tree as the user may
13 matches
Mail list logo
