On 19.06.2012, at 20:39, Blue Swirl wrote: > 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().
Oh? Certainly something to look at. Having all those statically sized arrays on the stack makes me nervous. > By the way, what is your plan about PPC patch queue, for example AREG0 > patches? There may be some need for rebasing already. I already did rebase them, no worries :). I'll send out a PULL request soon. Alex
