Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesday 3

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 01/02/2012 02:46 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be interested in hearing an update on
> the roadmap. In particular,
> * when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
> this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
> ti-tms570' rather than '-cpu cortex-r4' then, or -cpu overriding the
> container's default?
> * are the announced remaining 3 series going to touch CPUState? a) Are
> CPU features being refactored (standardized) for QOM or should we copy
> current x86 code for controlling ARM FPU? b) Any plans for adding
> inheritence, e.g., for CPU_COMMON and CPU reset?

Also, Anthony, what are the remaining 3 series exactly? :)

In particular, we should decide as soon as possible about moving 
features up from Device to Object or to new intermediate classes (e.g. 
IntrospectableObject for properties?), because I would like to start 
dogfooding QOM.  Right now, we have legacy properties but qdev functions 
still poke directly into the structs rather than using them.

> * what's the effect on VMState? Will VMState continue to coexist with
> QOM, or does QOM replace VMState at some point? Is it worth introducing
> new size mechanisms now or should we postpone SD/AHCI migration until
> QOM is merged?

I think no.  Postponing new device models (virtio-scsi) might make some 
sense, but VMState is definitely going to be with us for some time---at 
least it's not disappearing soon enough that we should halt any 
development in that area.

Paolo