Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 02/10/2011 09:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  wrote:
>    
>> So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386:
>>      
>    
>> 2) get rid of the entire concept of machines.  Creating a i440fx is
>> essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine.
>>      
> Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386?
> The concept of a machine model seems a pretty obvious one
> for ARM boards, for instance, and I'm not sure we'd gain much
> by having i386 be different to the other architectures...
>    

Yes, it makes a lot of sense, I just don't know the component names as 
well so bear with me :-)

There are two types of Versatile machines today, Versatile/AB and 
Versatile/PB.  They are both made with the same core, ARM926EJ-S, with 
different expansions.

So you would model arm926ej-s as the chipset and then build up the 
machines by modifying parameters of the chipset (like the board id) 
and/or adding different components on top of it.

A good way to think about what I'm proposing is that machine->init 
really should be a constructor for a device object.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> -- PMM
>
>