On 2011-12-05 14:14, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/05/2011 02:47 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>> (the memory API added unstable names, hopefully the QOM can take over >>> the stable ones and we'll have a good way to denote the unstable ones). >>> >> >> OK, maybe - or likely - we should make those device models have the same >> names in QOM once instantiated. But I'm still convinced they should >> remain separated models in contrast to a single model with a property. > > What do you mean by separate models? You share all the code you can, > and don't share the code you can't. To me, single model == single name. But different configuration. > >> The kvm ioapic, e.g., requires an additional property (gsi_base) that is >> meaningless for user space devices. And its interrupts have to be >> wired&configured differently at board model level. So, from the QEMU >> POV, it is a very different device. Just the guest does not notice. > > It's like qcow2 and raw/native IO are wire differently, or virtio-net > and vhost-net. But it's the same IDE device or virtio NIC. That would mean introducing a backend/frontend concept for irqchips. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
