On 02/13/2011 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 13 February 2011 16:56, Anthony Liguori<anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If we can move away from Bus abstraction and to a simpler interface
mechanism, then we can express peer relationships by just having bidirection
references. IOW:
-device cpus,northbridge=nb,id=cpus,count=16 -device i440fx,cpus=cpus
I don't think modelling each CPU makes sense. We should probably just model
all cpus in a single device for the sake of simplicity.
How would this work for systems with multiple CPUs which have different
views of the world? (ie their memory maps differ so that eg some RAM is
shared between them but some parts of the address space are different
RAM for the two cores, some devices one core only, some devices shared
between cores but the device can tell which core made an IO request)
With a bus-style abstraction this is straightforward: each core has its
own bus which is what defines its view of the world, some devices
and RAM are wired up to both buses. I'm not sure how the bidirectional
reference model would look for this?
Each core has it's own northbridge. You would do:
-device arm-cpu,northbridge=nb1 -device dsp,northbridge=nb2
Or whatever.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
(Real world examples would be if we ever had any need to actually
model any of the auxiliary cores in say an OMAP device, or the
M3 in a versatile-express. Yes, most systems won't look that odd
but it does come up, especially in testbench type designs, and our
interface abstraction should be able to handle it.)
-- PMM
--
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
