From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43430)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1bhVP5-00071i-VH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 01:28:08 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1bhVP0-0002hY-Vr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 01:28:06 -0400
Message-ID: <1473226066.8689.64.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 15:27:46 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20160907015932.GE2780@voom.fritz.box>
References: <1472661255-20160-1-git-send-email-clg@kaod.org>
	<1472661255-20160-4-git-send-email-clg@kaod.org>
	<20160905033909.GA3816@voom.fritz.box>
	<4e91a240-3a44-d96d-fb6e-74d9637ccd92@kaod.org>
	<20160907015932.GE2780@voom.fritz.box>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/7] ppc/pnv: Add XSCOM infrastructure
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater <clg@kaod.org>
Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>

On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:59 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>=20
> That does suggest an alternative approach though.=C2=A0 You could remov=
e
> XScomDevice entirely from QOM existence, and just expose the xscom
> address space globally, much like address_space_memory.=C2=A0 The
> individual devices could just register their own subregions within
> it.
>=20
> I'm not sure if the latter is a good idea, though.

Not globally, per chip.

Cheers,
Ben.