From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52848)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>) id 1R4iLK-00064W-Ew
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:01:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>) id 1R4iLJ-00025t-Dv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:01:14 -0400
Received: from mail-bw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:39671)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>) id 1R4iLI-00025o-VQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:01:13 -0400
Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15so4202424bkb.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 02:01:07 +0200
From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110917000107.GC20455@zapo>
References: <4E7228BC.9030104@us.ibm.com> <20110915165921.GF11524@redhat.com>
	<4E723B1B.5070805@codemonkey.ws>
	<20110915202907.GG11524@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA9x+y3+qk1FEivASd63nOF-ONRz+GPTSNu_5x4Vn=UaYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110916163326.GA11160@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA9aO99e-KYT5S2DtRqDej5JmvVgdCgu6+Gj-dmmMVm4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E73909B.3050900@codemonkey.ws>
	<20110916182246.GD11160@redhat.com>
	<4E73987A.1090803@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E73987A.1090803@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:42:02PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 01:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >Then we are arguing about minor detail. But according to you this minor
> >detail will prevent us from walking device tree up to the root, so it is
> >not so minor for me.
> 
> There is no root.  It's not a tree.  The composition tree (which
> we've been talking about using for canonical pathnames) has nothing
> to do with the buses.

Yep, I completely agree.

The bus used by a CPU (and how do you decide which CPU cause different
CPU's might have differnt access paths) to accesse devices may just be
one out of multiple other access paths to the device.

Cheers