From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56317) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UI64P-0003AM-UZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:35:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UI64O-0004Mn-Nq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:35:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30834) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UI64O-0004Mg-7m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:35:52 -0400 Message-ID: <5148F64D.3080705@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:35:41 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1363628125-5310-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <5147572E.8040501@redhat.com> <51475A00.8070304@redhat.com> <5147738F.7070803@redhat.com> <51482F56.4070604@redhat.com> <51483DAB.4040101@redhat.com> <5148E56A.4010105@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/35] hw/ reorganization, part 2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: "Edgar E. Iglesias" , Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Il 19/03/2013 23:34, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > On 19 March 2013 22:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 19/03/2013 11:32, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>> On 19 March 2013 10:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> Il 19/03/2013 11:10, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>>>> My point is that the QOM abstraction should encapsulate the CPU >>>>> cores just like any other piece of hardware. We're not there yet >>>>> but that's where we should be going. You can't really put the >>>>> CPUs into the a9mpcore &c containers until we've done that >>>>> abstraction properly anyway. >>>> >>>> Why not? It would remove a bunch of code that is currently duplicated >>>> in the boards. >>> >>> Hmm, maybe. >> >> So, okay to put these in hw/arm and then I'll work on patches moving >> cpu_arm_init to a*mpcore.c? > > Wrong way round. If you can't put the cpu_arm_init into the a*mpcore > in a way that doesn't make you want to put them in hw/arm/ then > it should wait until we've QOMified the CPU cores sufficiently > that we can do it properly. Does that include calling the CPU constructor something else than cpu_arm_init (which is defined in target-arm/)? For me that would be enough to put it in hw/arm. Paolo