On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > On 07.06.2012, at 23:09, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Today we have two separate places where we keep information which device >>> is where: >>> >>> - hw/ppce500_mpc8544ds.c to instantiate all devices >>> - pc-bios/mpc8544ds.dtb as device tree to tell the guest about devices >>> >>> Every time we split crucial information, things can go terribly wrong. If >>> you update one file, but not the other, you can screw things up without >>> realizing it quickly. >>> >>> The redundancy is also unnecessary, because QEMU already knows all the >>> information at which addresses its devices live. So we can generate the >>> device tree from the same variables - and even have the device tree adjust >>> if something changes in there. >>> >>> The one functionality we lose with this approach is the ability to manually >>> patch the device tree to contain additional devices. To still be able to do >>> so easily, we introduce a new option -machine dumpdtb=<file> that creates a >>> dtb output file which can be used with -machine dtb=<file> later. In between >>> these 2 executions of QEMU, the dtb can be modified however much you like. >>> >>> A lot of bits in this patch set are still hardcoded. We also don't >>> accomodate >>> for dynamic creation of device tree nodes when -device is used. This >>> requires >>> a bit more QOM'ification for us to be able to loop through all devices, so >>> we >>> can dynamically create the device tree nodes for them. The basic concept >>> should >>> still hold as is though. >>> >>> >>> Alex >> >> Please use snprintf() instead of sprintf(). > > Oh how much I would love to be able to just call asprintf() and call it a day > :).
There's g_vasprintf(), which could be used to implement qemu_asprintf(). By the way, what is your plan about PPC patch queue, for example AREG0 patches? There may be some need for rebasing already. > > > Alex >
