From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GcAHe-0005Fk-2Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:36:46 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GcAHc-0005Ev-Pu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:36:45 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GcAHc-0005Es-Gj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:36:44 -0400
Received: from [65.74.133.4] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GcAHc-0006DP-97
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:36:44 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Config file support
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:36:40 +0100
References: <OFC1EB4E10.63CD3677-ON8525720D.00622299-8525720D.00627058@us.ibm.com>
	<200610232129.53615.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<796615070.20061024031222@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <796615070.20061024031222@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200610240136.41311.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 01:12, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> Monday, October 23, 2006, 11:29:52 PM, you wrote:
> > On Monday 23 October 2006 21:01, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> On Sunday 22 October 2006 2:27 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> >> > I've been considering a machine config file for a while, but haven't
> >> > come up with a coherent way of representing everything yet.
>
>    I'm glad this discussion was brought up on the list. And I'd like
> to also bring back another related issue - what about providing
> "plugin" system for device (chip) implementation, in addition to
> flexible-format machine config allowing to construct "virtual boards"
> out of them?

IMHO we already have a fairly good device model, and it's not hard to add new 
devices.

If you mean putting individual devices in shared libraries and dlopen'ing them 
at runtime then I have no interest in that. AFAICS the only reason for 
wanting to do this is to use closed-source device models.

Paul