From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52965) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDAPw-0001zz-Tf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 04:13:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDAPs-0006IJ-FV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 04:13:44 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]:45426) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDAPs-0006Hz-9X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 04:13:40 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hi18so229675wib.9 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:13:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <513708BE.2000407@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:13:34 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1362510056-3316-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1362510056-3316-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] cpu: make CPU_INTERRUPT_RESET available on all targets List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Crosthwaite Cc: Peter Maydell , aliguori@us.ibm.com, lersek@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, afaerber@suse.de Il 06/03/2013 03:02, Peter Crosthwaite ha scritto: > If you truly have connectivity from device land to the CPU cluster > should that be reflected by some sort of QOM linkage? I think in real hardware what happens is that a single "wire" is distributed to all CPUs. Devices do not have direct links to all the CPUs, they are agnostic of how many CPUs they control (at least on x86). In this sense, using first_cpu is the right modelling in my opinion. Having qemu_irqs for all the reset requests would definitely be a good thing to do. In the meanwhile, however, having half of the reset signals as qemu_irqs, and the other half as function calls would be confusing. Alternatively we could add some kind of "meta-device" that distributes stuff to all CPUs, and hide the usage of first_cpu there. Andreas, what do you think? Paolo