From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57597)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1ZAosT-0004ch-2i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:30:49 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1ZAosP-0007bV-T0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:30:49 -0400
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:36867)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1ZAosP-0007bE-Jv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:30:45 -0400
Message-ID: <1435883434.1475.77.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:30:34 +1000
In-Reply-To: <1433812331-18993-1-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org>
References: <1433812331-18993-1-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/16] Add an IPMI device to QEMU
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: minyard@acm.org
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 20:11 -0500, minyard@acm.org wrote:
> I have reworked the QEMU IPMI patches, and I believe this design
> improves greatly on the previous one.  The suggestions made all
> resulted in better design.  To start an IPMI interface
> with this, you would use:
> 
>   -device ipmi-bmc-sim,id=bmc0 -device isa-ipmi-bt,bmc=bmc0
> 
> Note that I did not make the BMCs objects.  I started this way, but
> adding properties was ending up duplicating a lot of code already
> in the device core, especially for the chardev link.
> 
> I'm not sure of the importance of having a BMC be an object instead
> of a device, but it seems to me that if we do that, it would be
> best to add helper functions to the object core for the chardev
> and integer properties.

Out of curiosity, what's the outlook to have this merged ? I'm working
on a "native" OpenPower (POWER8 based) model which could definitely
make good use of that !

Cheers,
Ben.