Il 12/04/2012 18:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > On 12 April 2012 17:02, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> On 04/12/2012 10:52 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Why would you design an infrastructure that lets you coherently bundle >>> together a collection of devices and have configurable properties on >>> that bundle as well as on the devices, and then *not* use it for machines? >> >> >> The machine concept in QEMU is "broken" IMHO. If we want to maintain >> compatibility (and we do), we need to let machines act as a bridge. >> >> Here's how I expect the PC to work: >> >> qemu --no-machine -readconfig my-system.cfg >> >> [device "root"] >> driver=i440fx >> cpu[0]=cpu0 >> slot[3]=e1000 >> memory=2G >> biosname=bios.bin >> >> [device "cpu0"] >> driver=qemu64 >> >> [device "e1000"] >> bus=/i440fx >> netdev=eth0 >> >> [netdev "eth0"] >> type=tap > > Isn't this just defining a machine in a config file without > naming it? > >> There is no real need to have a '-machine' option and no need to model a >> machine. > > This doesn't make sense to me. We need a -machine option because it's > the major way for the user to say what kind of model they want.
I think that's a difference between "PC" and "SoC" views that is difficult to reconcile... I think what Anthony is saying makes a lot of sense, and there's probably a way to make it work for SoCs too with some changes. However there's no need to be so Draconian, we know that we'll never get even close for most boards... Paolo
