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 18:52:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20101124165244.GD20014@redhat.com> References: <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> <20101124162956.GB20014@redhat.com> <4CED3E4D.8050608@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]:51764 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755559Ab0KXQxW (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:53:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CED3E4D.8050608@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:33:17PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/24/2010 06:29 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> > >> >> >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. > > Plus some magic glue. You can't say it is an ISA bridge. It's > exactly what its spec says it is. > First thing my spec says is "Bridge Between the PCI Bus and ISA Bus" > >> >> >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? > > Or write a spec. > It will not make it part of any existing system. -- Gleb.