From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47781)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Rhsxh-0000gF-Rj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:14:46 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Rhsxg-0002eG-P2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:14:45 -0500
Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:43881)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Rhsxg-0002e8-IH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:14:44 -0500
Received: by iagj37 with SMTP id j37so34880386iag.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F02567F.6080701@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:14:39 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87ehvis3uj.fsf@trasno.mitica>	<4F01B542.8000800@suse.de>
	<CAFEAcA_cRDddMQD3cFzLp8doS2P+9=qwpF-PizjVA4QDrFowZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_cRDddMQD3cFzLp8doS2P+9=qwpF-PizjVA4QDrFowZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesday 3
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>, quintela@redhat.com, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>, KVM devel mailing list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Developers qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 01/02/2012 09:54 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 January 2012 13:46, Andreas Färber<afaerber@suse.de>  wrote:
>> * when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
>> this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
>> ti-tms570' rather than '-cpu cortex-r4' then, or -cpu overriding the
>> container's default?
>
> My initial inclination is to say that specifying the CPU on the
> command line is almost always the wrong thing for ARM platforms
> (now or in a future QOM world). For instance, if you start the
> vexpress-a9 board with something other than -cpu cortex-a9 it won't
> complain but it won't do the right thing either (you'll get the
> private peripherals for the A9 with whatever CPU core you asked for).
>
> I don't think you want to have the user specifying -device my-soc
> on the command line either -- the user should be selecting a board
> (machine) model, which will generally nail down which soc and cpu
> are used.

Let's separate out what a user *should* do from what a user *can* do.

A user *should* have a command line syntax that reflects something that makes 
sense to them.  For instance, qemu-system-arm --machine beaglebone

I don't really care what the SoC or CPU in my beaglebone is.  I just want to 
emulate one.

But I do believe we want to make it possible for -device to create a CPU even 
when it doesn't make sense.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori