From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMXcU-0005HV-7t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 06:12:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMXcS-0001zU-UX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 06:12:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:11:57 +1100 From: David Gibson Message-ID: <20171206111157.GE3057@umbus.fritz.box> References: <15378780eee5dc9ebc68361463a0fd6acea55556.1511731946.git.mdavidsaver@gmail.com> <20171205065304.GK3057@umbus.fritz.box> <9f529ae2-9f89-b542-5933-9f57c451aae0@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SqEuGDw53xMPnx3c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9f529ae2-9f89-b542-5933-9f57c451aae0@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 13/17] e500: move PCI host bridge into CCSR List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Davidsaver Cc: Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org --SqEuGDw53xMPnx3c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:42:25PM -0500, Michael Davidsaver wrote: > On 12/05/2017 01:53 AM, David Gibson wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 03:59:11PM -0600, Michael Davidsaver wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Davidsaver > >=20 > > Hmm. Is there anything you're *not* planning to move under the CCSR. >=20 > Well, the decrementer/timebase initialization for one as this has > nothing to do with the CCSR registers. Right, but no actual devices, even small ones? > I haven't added the TSEC/eTSEC instances either. > Partly this is because the existing boards, for reasons I don't understan= d, > use virtio NICs. >=20 > Further, the mpc8540 has TSEC instances 1 and 2, while the mpc8544 > has instances 1 and 3. So I decided to leave NIC setup to the Machine > rather then add the extra code to parameterize this under the CCSR device. >=20 > > If not, I'm really wondering if the CCSR ought to be a device in its > > own right, rather than just a container memory region used within the > > machine. >=20 > I don't think I follow what you mean by "device" in this context? > The CCSR object is a SysBusDevice in the qom tree ("/machine/e500-ccsr"). > What device-like characteristics could it have? Sorry, I wasn't clear. the CCSR definitely *is* a device in the current scheme, but I'm wondering if that was a good idea. --=20 David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --SqEuGDw53xMPnx3c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEdfRlhq5hpmzETofcbDjKyiDZs5IFAlon0HsACgkQbDjKyiDZ s5I32A//YteUyQUc9RMUtACP61J4x4/PlLHboNF7esPK5wfSJP4g5LgmHjv99nId R4ULstUnT4YaLBQGR2IFdZT+QjwXWDZcJaFPju1rjZRNeU/NnglxghQQSuTmvk7g Y23C98Ii0pY8bVu65AqjcZrE9DzqMGBZ5fEjDMI26+vEBkqTWKi7F81Ki8Uz2h6Y OfTroV76F2kmRtRO2EFGnfYQGc9QVXQ74lRQzNLjzny/h0aDLcvTt4y1tbL7nXlA 5OQs6bVOPGyG9g/pasHH7srSj40JyJLQ76B3nlsiKE92CrI05LS0tB6u4f4F0fNz ogj3qkUWb601zabMtseMCA0TJf0YJis43U52+iNdfMdZCPVEuxAhCJ7UhjJQrsbT 97flzC5GBfAUkkIXg4sEfTD/HF5ygvNfc8bIwlBAp0si60o6SRuUstWS/Vs9pxhe xstPtASYOiKRUp77dO3KCu6BpMLvKo9l6yFwGN0ixlgDBXyBDgGV9J9Jkbbq1O5i IXnWvVAtZTHJMhDhSaEVa+o8vE/vtqfwrX83j/fy0o0vi8TOw2M5ZZNx/LcrUYu9 +/PCDSylS7027ABuGn2FLiIpHuoa5DHNOlHGwJCxQR1s+cHwyhHkfrzun9oxNJ+R fQu+bO6RC/9ei5I1nw7k+dsT12jORtViuURuNcUe3OPNe6R+xe4= =q48J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SqEuGDw53xMPnx3c--