On 07/24/2014 01:02 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 23.07.14 17:33, Eric Auger wrote: >> On 07/08/2014 03:52 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> On 07.07.14 09:08, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> This method is meant to be called on sysbus device dynamic >>>> instantiation (-device option). Devices that support this >>>> kind of instantiation must implement this method. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> For the reason I stated earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to put >>> device tree code into our device models. >> Hi Alex, >> >> I would propose we discuss that topic during next KVM call if you are >> available. > > I lost track when that would be. Next week would work fine, the week > after not :). Hi Alex, Unfortunately I think the last one was this week. If you are available next week I would propose to setup a short call next week. Who are the required people in the call aside us and Peter? > >> Hope Peter will be available to join too. Because I feel >> stuck between not putting things in the machine file (1) - obviously we >> could put them in a helper module (2) - and not putting them in the >> device (3). >> >> Whatever the solution I fear we are going to pollute something: Any time >> a new device wants to support dynamic instantiation, we would need to >> modify the machine file or the helper module with 1 and 2 resp. In case >> we put it in the device we pollute this latter... >> >> My hope was that quite few QEMU platform devices would need to support >> that feature and hence would need to implement this dt node generation >> method. To me dynamic instantiation of platform device was not the >> mainstream solution. > > Quite frankly I don't think it'd be that many. I think we'll cover 99.9% > of all use cases if we just enable it for the virt machines of e500 and > arm. > >> Then there is the fundamental question of technical feasibility of >> devising a generic PlatformParams that match all the specialization >> needs? Here I miss experience. In case we know the machine type and a >> small set of additional fields couldn't we do the adaptations you talked >> about, related to IRQs? > > The problem is that I don't know all the boards and different things > people come up with either. There's also no reason machine files have to > stick to the "platform bus" model - they could just take those devices > and stick them into an existing other virtual bus. > > I don't feel comfortable generalizing something where I'm pretty sure > things will blow up sooner or later. ok Best Regards Eric > > > Alex > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
