Am 02.08.2012 15:48, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 2 August 2012 02:16, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> >> --- >> Hello Peter, here's my current draft for subjecting more arm devices to the >> stricter device checks in libhwX. Please review desired granularity (here: >> fine-grained) and naming (e.g., PL310 vs. l2x0). >> Since this is preparing for a future armeb-softmmu, Anthony's >> CONFIG_ARCH_ARM >> is not going to help here (we would want to turn off many devices for >> armeb). >> The SoCs with references to CPUs in their header are untouched, i.MX31 was >> not yet reviewed for movability. > > So what's our long term vision here? Every device has a CONFIG_FOO that > gets turned on in some default-configs/ file?
The general idea is to set good examples for authors of new devices and to prepare for armeb: To me, that calls for disabling all ARM devices apart from those whitelisted / strictly needed for BE. And for me personally to reduce build times when changing CPU things: Currently way too many files are needlessly rebuilt because they happen to trigger a cpu.h dependency (NEED_CPU_H) due to sitting in the "wrong" Makefile. Another, independent long-term vision would be to place arm files into hw/arm/, to put some more structure into the looong list of hw/ files. But moving files around would be a task for you to do on your arm-devs.next queue to not interfere with any ongoing device work. The difference between devices and machine stuff would then be obj-y vs. hw-obj-y as Anthony explained to me in the kvm/ context. > What are the 'stricter checks' you mention? Poisoning certain identifiers (Blue's initiative, I believe), no explicit guest-dependent swaps and other limitations incurred by cpu.h-less headers. >> +hw-obj-$(CONFIG_PL310) += arm_l2x0.o > > Maybe we should have named the source file pl310.c... That was one of my RFC points - not sure how to interpret the header: Is this multiple devices in one? Or different names for the same thing? I just found it looked nicer this way. ;) Independent of that, do we need to separate things on that granularity at all? Or just do CONFIG_PL or something? In practice, it seemed that usage of these devices is rather fragmented (not all boards use all PLxxx devices) so that per-device config names as in master allow for fine-grained control of which devices get built if only armeb-softmmu were to be built; on the other hand if that seems too complicated the alternative question to ask would be, are all PLxxx devices theoretically capable of being used for armeb as well? >> +hw-obj-$(CONFIG_STELLARIS_ENET) += stellaris_enet.o > > Why just this stellaris device and not the others? I sent this out to comply with the rule of having a patch on the list by Soft Freeze date, I did not find the time to complete/update it. Either there's CPU/swap dependencies in the other files or I did not try to device'ify them yet. >> -obj-y += pl041.o lm4549.o >> +obj-y += lm4549.o > > If we're moving the pl041 we should move its accompanying codec > (the lm4549) too, especially since the pl041 is definitely ARM > only but the lm4549 could be used on other platforms in theory. There was a merge conflict. The lm4549.o did not seem to exist when I put together the original patch. And the file names are not exactly telling, you'll have to admit. So I didn't check on that one yet, it got late enough... Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
