From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35582) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRfGD-00061A-Mg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:36:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRfG2-0004aa-7T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:36:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28238) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRfG1-0004aW-Uq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:36:14 -0400 Message-ID: <54102948.3080006@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:34:48 +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> <54102631.9090604@redhat.com> <54102740.3060309@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <54102740.3060309@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 12:26, Alexander Graf ha scritto: > > 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 ;). True. The alternative is to hardcode the knowledge of the spec in the management layers (since you cannot do index=0|1, you have to do something akin to iobase=0x3f8 for the x86 COM1 port). I guess you will still need two sysbuses so that you get the correct hierarchy in the device tree, right? And we're back to the beginning of the discussion: the distinction between a "sysbus" and a "platform bus" disappears, and in fact it even feels more accurate to just call these things "sysbuses"... Paolo