From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46825) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sld9O-0005D9-3u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:42:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sld9I-0006kN-Qu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:42:33 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:36504) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sld9I-0006jr-IC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:42:28 -0400 Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so4561612wgb.10 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4FF16D01.5020207@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:42:25 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1340610940-923-1-git-send-email-o.ogurtsov@samsung.com> <1340610940-923-2-git-send-email-o.ogurtsov@samsung.com> <4FE82E60.5050007@suse.de> <4FE84FAE.1050709@samsung.com> <4FE852F7.9060405@suse.de> <4FE92A16.5060705@samsung.com> <4FED9EFA.8040402@suse.de> <4FF06C3C.2070706@redhat.com> <4FF164F5.90302@samsung.com> <4FF16BF0.7010905@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF16BF0.7010905@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Exynos4: added RTC device List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , Igor Mitsyanko , Evgeny Voevodin , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, d.solodkiy@samsung.com, Oleg Ogurtsov , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Il 02/07/2012 11:37, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto: > Il 02/07/2012 11:31, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> On 2 July 2012 10:08, Igor Mitsyanko wrote: >>> So, what's the consensus here, for now new devices go to >>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs while somebody moves all new and old not cpu-specific >>> devices (not just exynos-related) from hw/arm/Makefile.objs to >>> hw/Makefile.objs with one commit? Because having one RTC device compile >>> through hw/Makefile.objs while all other exynos devices are compiled through >>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs doesn't makes much sense. >> >> I don't want things moved piecemeal, especially not one file from >> a whole board model. >> >> I'd also like to see a nice clear summary of the ground rules first >> (ie how you decide which makefile / target / whatever a file should >> be in). At the moment I'm not really sure what the rules are, which >> means I can't properly review those bits of patches. > > For now nothing should change compared to the past, except that obj-y > should appear in hw/ARCH/Makefile.objs rather than Makefile.target. > This is because there is still no mechanism to guard the build of > ARM-only devices from hw/Makefile.objs. When Anthony's patch lands, we > can start moving files to hw/Makefile.objs using CONFIG_ARCH_ARM; I > understood Andreas is going to do that. Small addendum: I think the idea should be to put source in hw/ARCH if it has a hard dependency on target-ARCH, otherwise we can leave it in hw/ and decide on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I believe it'd be best if board descriptions were moved to hw/ARCH, even if all the required hardware is in hw/ and even if the file can be moved from obj-y to hw-obj-y. However, this can be left open to later discussion, and is complicated by the fact that some boards (e.g. musicpal) include devices and machine models in the same file. Paolo