From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 2/4] Introduce a C++ wrapper for the kvm APIs Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:29:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20101124162956.GB20014@redhat.com> References: <1290595933-13122-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <1290595933-13122-3-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <50DD1E97-0ECD-41E6-B6F8-1D78AA4A4876@suse.de> <4CED2416.1040102@codemonkey.ws> <20101124154006.GE15111@redhat.com> <4CED344B.3030000@codemonkey.ws> <20101124161204.GF15111@redhat.com> <4CED39DE.3030207@redhat.com> <20101124162153.GA20014@redhat.com> <4CED3C88.3040501@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Anthony Liguori , Alexander Graf , Marcelo Tosatti , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49353 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753812Ab0KXQaI (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:30:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CED3C88.3040501@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:25:44PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/24/2010 06:21 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:14:22PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 11/24/2010 06:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Why would we specify a PIIX3 device based on a configuration file? > >> >> There is only one PIIX3 device in the world. I don't see a lot of > >> >> need to create arbitrary types of devices. > >> >> > >> >Why deny this flexibility from those who need it for modelling > >> >different HW? > >> > >> The various components exist and can be reused. > >> > >So you are saying lets use code as data for some and config files for > >others. If you have support for building chipsets from data why not > >simply have 440fx.cfg somewhere? > > I don't object to it. If it can be done, it's a good thing. > > Often integrated chipsets have lots of little special cases though. > For example some pins acting as GPIO if an embedded device is > disabled. > > >Besides what qemu provides no is not > >stock PIIX3. We have parts of PIIX4 for power management. > > That's a bug. > > >> >Besides, as I said, PIIX3 is ISA bridge and this > >> >is what class should implement. > >> > >> Isn't it an ISA bridge + a few ISA devices? > >> > >Why? Because they happen to be on the same silicon? So then in SoC > >all devices are in cpu? > > PIIX3 is what the PIIX3 spec says it is. We decompose it into the > PIIX3 ISA bridge, real time clock, etc. Some of these components > are standardized and can be used stand-alone. > So PIIX3 is just a packaging of mostly independent components for cost and space cutting. Just like SoC. > >> >We have fw_cfg on ISA bus too > >> >which does not exits on real HW and we may want to have other > >> >devices. We should be able to add them without changing PIIX3 > >> >class. > >> > >> fw_cfg should certainly not be a member of PIIX3. > >> > >It is really not much different from others. > > I couldn't find it in the PIIX3 spec. > I couldn't find it in _any_ spec. Should we get rid of it? -- Gleb.