From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53391 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PnS1P-0003Qc-4d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:37:04 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PnS1I-0006YJ-Gk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:36:58 -0500
Received: from mail-fx0-f45.google.com ([209.85.161.45]:42422)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PnS1I-0006Xz-Bw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:36:56 -0500
Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so1214791fxm.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D53A39D.8000108@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:36:45 +0100
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8
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>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTincX+_67BSUMdPVsM8oseiqyCRccJ6_qPFjrQ9G@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.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
>
>