From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:29:54 +0200 Message-ID: <4D53BE22.3050706@redhat.com> References: <20110208155557.GM6198@x200.localdomain> <4D51B1C9.3080507@codemonkey.ws> <4D526D0D.9020507@codemonkey.ws> <4D52A86A.1030407@codemonkey.ws> <4D52F20A.7070009@codemonkey.ws> <4D539800.3070802@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Blue Swirl , Chris Wright , Markus Armbruster , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59507 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755152Ab1BJKaC (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:30:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4D539800.3070802@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/10/2011 09:47 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386: > > 1) make the i440fx device have an embedded ide controller, piix3, and > usb controller that get initialized automatically. The piix3 embeds > the PCI-to-ISA bridge along with all of the default ISA devices (rtc, > serial, etc.). This I like. > > 2) get rid of the entire concept of machines. Creating a i440fx is > essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine. No, it's not. The 440fx does not include an IOAPIC, for example. There may be other optional components, or differences in wiring, that make two machines with i440fx not identical. > > 4) model the CPUs as devices that take a pointer to a host controller, > for x86, the normal case would be giving it a pointer to i440fx. > Surely the connection is via a bus? An x86 cpu talks to the bus, and there happens to be an 440fx north bridge at the end of it. It could also be a Q35 or something else. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function