From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48525) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQM5N-0002jO-Da for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:19:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQM5M-0007is-9Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:19:01 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4008:c01::230]:62306) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQM5M-0007hk-3I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:19:00 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id jf3so981378bkc.21 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5166FE8C.5070000@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:18:52 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1365696633-30727-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1365696633-30727-13-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <5166EE54.8040001@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 12/12] hw: move memory API to hw/core List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mst@redhat.com Il 11/04/2013 19:14, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > On 11 April 2013 18:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 11/04/2013 18:28, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>> On 11 April 2013 17:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini >>> This doesn't look right. The MemoryRegion system isn't >>> hw-specific, it's a part of the basic QEMU emulation >>> system which provides functionality to hw/ and other >>> things (like cputlb.c). >> >> The accelerator- and target-independent parts of the basic emulation are >> already in hw/core (not much really, but consider that CPUs are device >> and depend on hw/core/qdev.c). The memory API is simply the interface >> between the accelerators and hw/ (boards & device models). > > Yes, so it should be provided in the place we put our accelerator > implementation (ie .): it is functionality and interface exposed > *to* the code in hw/, not functionality and interface provided > *by* hw/. Ok, the historical practice was that qdev core was in hw/, and that's what I tried to follow. It makes sense either way to me. But then patch 11 also has to be dropped, otherwise it doesn't make sense. Michael, what do you think? Paolo