From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60028) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T3P6h-0001iV-Um for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:21:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T3P6e-0004Pq-2m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:21:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T3P6d-0004Pg-R5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:21:12 -0400 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: (Peter Crosthwaite's message of "Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:28:10 +1000") References: <1344931787-27056-1-git-send-email-peter.crosthwaite@petalogix.com> <87sjbpx4hh.fsf@elfo.mitica> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:20:03 +0200 Message-ID: <877gstg90s.fsf@elfo.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] i2c: factor out VMSD to parent class Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Crosthwaite Cc: Peter Maydell , aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, paul@codesourcery.com Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 14 August 2012 09:27, Juan Quintela wrote: >>> "Peter A. G. Crosthwaite" wrote: >>>> Hi All. PMM raised a query on a recent series of mine (the SSI series) about >>>> handling VMSD for devices which define state at multiple levels of the QOM >>>> heirachy. >> >>> - If you ask me, I would very much preffer something like PCI devices, >>> where the 1st field of any specific device is the i2c part. This >>> would achieve two things: >>> * all i2c devices would have the common fields at the beggining >>> * we sent the data for one device in one go, so we will never had >>> trouble making sure that both devices arrive at the same time, in >>> the right order, etc. >>> >>> - I guess there is same reasy why you want to split the device state, >>> it could be on the other series where I haven't read it though. > > So this is exactly what I have done in the SSI. Correct me if I am > wrong but it is the same setup as PCI where the VMSTATE_PCI_DEVICE > (VMSTATE_SSI_SLAVE in my case) is the first field. All I need to do is > bump version numbers? I think so. What boards normally use SSI? Later, Juan.