On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:46:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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 Well ATM it's part of libhw and is built twice. Not sure what do you propose here. -- MST -- 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
