Re: [PATCH v2] hw/riscv: Add Microblaze V 32bit virt board

[Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 2:06 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
<philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 30/10/24 02:53, Michal Simek wrote:
> > Hi Alistair,
> >
> > On 10/30/24 03:54, Alistair Francis wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:26 PM Sai Pavan Boddu
> >> <sai.pavan.boddu@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> diff --git a/hw/riscv/microblaze-v-virt.c b/hw/riscv/microblaze-v-virt.c
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 00000000000..6603e6d6b06
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/hw/riscv/microblaze-v-virt.c
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * QEMU model of Microblaze V (32bit version)
>
> Is there a 64-bit model planned?
>
> >>> + *
> >>> + * based on hw/microblaze/petalogix_ml605_mmu.c
> >>
> >> Just a question, are you sure the virt board should be based on the
> >> petalogix_ml605_mmu?
> >
> > It is definitely based on ml605 and it is fair to say it and keep origin
> > copyrights around.
> >
> >> This will be the reference Microblaze V implementation in QEMU, and
> >> the petalogix_ml605_mmu might be a bit old now. It also uses a lot of
> >> the Microblaze architecture components (like the interrupt controller)
> >> compared to the RISC-V architecture components which might cause
> >> issues for you in the future.
> >>
> >> Just something to keep in mind
> >
> > And the reason is that it is really design like that in design tool
> > (Vivado).
> > There is no risc-v specific interrupt controller use but origin axi intc
> > used in origin Microblaze designs. Timer is the same story.
> >
> > ml605 board and it's chip is old but IPs which are used are still
> > supported and used in new designs.

Fine with me, just wanted to check.

It's probably worth stating all of this in the board's documentation,
just to be clear that it's an abstract board.

> >
> > And regarding using virt in name. We can create design like it is
> > described but it is not going to work on standard evaluation boards
> > without extra fmc cards for example.
> > It means word virt is just description that it is not really target any
> > specific board. Definitely name can change and suggestions are welcome.
>
> What about 'generic'?

Yeah, I think we should avoid virt. generic seems better. Or something
like "example" or "base". Names are hard

Alistair