From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:36:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4D53A39D.8000108@codemonkey.ws>
References: <20110208155557.GM6198@x200.localdomain>	<m3k4hasb3i.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>	<4D51B1C9.3080507@codemonkey.ws>	<m3r5bhhc0d.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>	<4D526D0D.9020507@codemonkey.ws>	<m3pqr1s86w.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>	<4D52A86A.1030407@codemonkey.ws>	<AANLkTimtswr5fN9PGVnTSxb9szu12bTC0s4tVwbku-J5@mail.gmail.com>	<4D52F20A.7070009@codemonkey.ws>	<AANLkTi=JzM21XfDR+YO9JY=e8ONGDWVR6YeYdQ7jzzrk@mail.gmail.com>	<4D539800.3070802@codemonkey.ws> <AANLkTincX+_67BSUMdPVsM8oseiqyCRccJ6_qPFjrQ9G@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>,
	Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:55502 "EHLO
	mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751067Ab1BJIg4 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:36:56 -0500
Received: by fxm20 with SMTP id 20so1186498fxm.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:36:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTincX+_67BSUMdPVsM8oseiqyCRccJ6_qPFjrQ9G@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

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
>
>