From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33632) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRf6R-0000I6-36 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:26:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRf6J-0001X2-H3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:26:19 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46670 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRf6J-0001Wm-B0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:26:11 -0400 Message-ID: <54102740.3060309@suse.de> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:26:08 +0200 From: Alexander Graf 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> <54102631.9090604@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <54102631.9090604@redhat.com> 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: Paolo Bonzini , 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 On 10.09.14 12:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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... The problem if you continue that thought process is that we'd end up with 500 different buses and 500 different uart boilerplate devices just to fit into the respective buses ;). Otherwise I agree. Alex