On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:47:28PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/24/2010 06:40 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >>>> > >>> The fact that in physical implementation they sit in the same silicon > >>> does not mean that logically they belong to the same class. PIIX3 > >>> is ISA bridge. It doesn't mean it owns devices on the ISA bus it > >>> provides. The information that you are trying to convey here belongs to > >>> configuration file. > >> > >> Why would we specify a PIIX3 device based on a configuration file? > >> There is only one PIIX3 device in the world. I don't see a lot of need > >> to create arbitrary types of devices. > > > >Well the problem here is that the i8042 is in the i440fx.c file, it > >shouldn't be there in the first place. The gluing together things in > >silicon is really just a way to shorten the wires and make it easier, > >they are still separate devices and as long as the i8042 requires ISA > >access, and to be treated like an ISA device, we should glue it onto the > >virtual ISA bus within QEMU. > > > >What you did above is making the exact same mistake as is done with the > >current i440fx.c code. > > If a real life 440fx has an i8042, then an emulated 440fx should > have an emulated i8042. It's not complicated. > Correct. But it can be achieved by making 440fx a class that includes other classes or by building it from different classes linked through common interfaces. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
