From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47924)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jk@ozlabs.org>) id 1afgh3-0002C2-HB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:34:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jk@ozlabs.org>) id 1afgh2-00058q-M5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:34:53 -0400
References: <1457928832-31026-1-git-send-email-andrew@aj.id.au>
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org>
Message-ID: <56E790E2.7040006@ozlabs.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:34:42 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1457928832-31026-1-git-send-email-andrew@aj.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/4] Add ASPEED AST2400 SoC and
	OpenPower BMC machine
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=a9dric_Le_Goater?= <clg@kaod.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hi Andrew,

> This patch series models enough of the ASPEED AST2400 ARM9 SoC[0] to
> boot an aspeed_defconfig Linux kernel[1][2]. Specifically, the series
> implements the ASPEED timer and VIC devices, integrates them into an
> AST2400 SoC and exposes it all through a new opbmc2400 machine. The
> device model patches only partially implement the hardware features of
> the timer and VIC, again mostly just enough to boot Linux.

Awesome! Nice to have these patches escaping the lab :)

In terms of naming suggestions: I think this depends on what we're
looking to emulate here. I see two options:

The qemu platform becomes a "reference" for OpenPOWER bmc hardware, but
doesn't necessarily align with an actual machine. In that case,
something generic like opbmc-<SoC> would make sense.

On the other hand, if we'd like to create qemu platforms that represent
actual machines (eg, the OpenPOWER "palmetto" machine), then
<PLATFORM>-bmc would seem more appropriate. In this case, the machine
name would be palmetto-bmc. No need to include the SoC name in that, as
it's defined by the hardware implementation.

I think the latter option may be more generally useful.

Regards,


Jeremy