From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33045) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRf3Q-0004hQ-NP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:23:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRf3I-0000GZ-9S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:23:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRf3I-0000GR-0w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:23:04 -0400 Message-ID: <54102631.9090604@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:21:37 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1410249273-6063-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1410249273-6063-2-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <540EDCF9.7070609@redhat.com> <540F1BF2.4080505@linaro.org> <540F23F6.8080407@redhat.com> <54101A61.1080503@suse.de> <54101D5F.6060602@redhat.com> <54102068.6000807@suse.de> <54102258.4040503@redhat.com> <5410235E.7090704@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <5410235E.7090704@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/6] hw/misc/dyn_sysbus_binding: helpers for sysbus device dynamic binding List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf , Eric Auger , eric.auger@st.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com, kim.phillips@freescale.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com, manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, joel.schopp@amd.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, afaerber@suse.de Cc: patches@linaro.org, will.deacon@arm.com, stuart.yoder@freescale.com, Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, a.motakis@virtualopensystems.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Il 10/09/2014 12:09, Alexander Graf ha scritto: > Fair enough. > > As far as moving "platform bus" logic into sysbus, I'd really like to > hold back and see what this whole thing ends up getting used for first. > > So for now, I'd definitely prefer to keep "platform bus" logic and > "sysbus" logic separate. If we realize that every user only ever uses > the dynamic sysbus creation in conjunction with our "platform bus" > implementation, we can merge them. I agree. As you pointed out, we have two usecases: 1) arbitrary dynamic sysbus devices, because you're playing with board design or because you're working on a virtualized platform 2) pluggable components in a fixed board design (e.g. CCSR) The only thing they share is FDT creation. The other part, which is assigning the interrupts and memory regions, is different: case (1) has it driven by command line or simply bottom-to-top; case (2) has it driven by an implementation of a spec. It's not even clear to me that E500 CCSR devices should be sysbus, in fact... Paolo