From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Machine description as data Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:25:52 +0000 Message-ID: <200902131425.53137.paul@codesourcery.com> References: <87iqnh6kyv.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> <200902131333.47141.paul@codesourcery.com> <871vu2pgq7.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <871vu2pgq7.fsf-A7mx1g9ivIOttUaS3K59qNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: Markus Armbruster Cc: devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, qemu-devel-qX2TKyscuCcdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org > Look, my goals are rather modest. I want to start where we are, put > devices behind a nice abstract interface one by one, picking apart the > pc.c hairball on the way. The idea is not to design the perfect, > all-encompassing abstract device interface, just to capture what we > need, and extend as we go. The abstract device interface makes a simple > machine builder possible, driven by tree-structured configuration. That > in turn makes it easier to make things configurable. Which can be > expected to lead to more configurability, when and where there's a need > for it. > > All this can be done in nice, safe baby steps. I don't need to come up > with an all-singing machine description fit for a picky kernel before I > can start doing something useful. > > Now, if you hand me such a configuration on a platter, I'd be a fool not > to take it. The catch: I need one for a PC. I suspect these two goals may be contradictory. The PC machine is so hairy that you need a singing, dancing machine description to be able to describe it. OTOH if what you really want to do is configure the host binding side of things, then as I've mentioned before, I see that as been somewhat separate from the actual machine creation, and trying to combine the two is probably a mistake. I really don't want users to have to hack the machine config just to change the name of an image file. Paul