Il 03/04/2013 16:28, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > You need to group similar devices for the nesting to be useful. For > > example, it should be easy to check if something is true of all ISA > > bridges, or to do the same change in all of them. ISA and PCI bridges > > have too little in common for that (and why not put I2C and SPI in > > hw/bridge too :)). > > Yes, why not. What all bridges need to share is their modeling > needs to be similar. That's one thing that practically > needs to be cleaned up I think. Bridges are simply devices that expose their own bus, or that derive from a class that does. But bridge is not a universal word, some buses use controller or adapter, it would be weird to have hw/bridge/i2c or hw/bridge/scsi (and leave two files only in hw/scsi). > But will this conflict with how libhw works at the moment? > We don't want to rebuild pci for each target ... No, we won't. In fact, almost everything should be built once only. As far as PCI is concerned, if it's not it is because of some really bad hacks. For unmaintained boards, it's best to stash them in hw/ARCH. If we limit the amount of files that are built per-target, it works nicely. Paolo -- 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
