2013/2/18 Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de>:
> Am 06.02.2013 10:45, schrieb Kuo-Jung Su:
>> +typedef struct FaradayMachState {
>> + ARMCPU *cpu;
>> + DeviceState *scu;
>> + DeviceState *ahbc;
>> + DeviceState *ddrc;
>> + DeviceState *hdma[2]; /* AHB DMA */
>> + DeviceState *pdma[2]; /* APB DMA */
>> + i2c_bus *i2c[2];
>> +
>> + MemoryRegion *as;
>> + MemoryRegion *ram;
>> + MemoryRegion *ram_alias;
>> + pflash_t *rom;
>> + MemoryRegion *sram;
>> +
>> + uint32_t ahb_slave4; /* AHB slave 4 default value */
>> + uint32_t ahb_slave6; /* AHB slave 6 default value */
>> + uint32_t ahb_remapped:1;
>> + uint32_t ddr_inited:1;
>> +} FaradayMachState;
>
> I think you need to distinguish what's on the SoC and what's on the
> evaluation board there...
>
> For the SoC you can have a QOM type with DeviceState parent, but the
> stuff on the board should stay separate. Instead of pointers you should
> use the actual types (i.e., add field when you introduce the device
> model). This will work out-of-the box for your own devices and will work
> for ARMCPU once my pull is applied. The purpose would be container-like
> grouping of devices and sharing across boards.
> However, as Peter pointed out, devices should avoid fiddling with each
> other's internals even if they have access to a pointer/field.
>
I guess now I understand what's wrong here.
Since 'A36x' is actually a code name for SoC, and the 'A36xEVB' is the
target board (PCB).
So I should create a A36x instance with DeviceState rather than QEMUMachine.
Am I correct?
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
--
Best wishes,
Kuo-Jung Su
