Il 19/03/2013 23:34, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > On 19 March 2013 22:23, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Il 19/03/2013 11:32, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>> On 19 March 2013 10:27, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Il 19/03/2013 11:10, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>>>> My point is that the QOM abstraction should encapsulate the CPU >>>>> cores just like any other piece of hardware. We're not there yet >>>>> but that's where we should be going. You can't really put the >>>>> CPUs into the a9mpcore &c containers until we've done that >>>>> abstraction properly anyway. >>>> >>>> Why not? It would remove a bunch of code that is currently duplicated >>>> in the boards. >>> >>> Hmm, maybe. >> >> So, okay to put these in hw/arm and then I'll work on patches moving >> cpu_arm_init to a*mpcore.c? > > Wrong way round. If you can't put the cpu_arm_init into the a*mpcore > in a way that doesn't make you want to put them in hw/arm/ then > it should wait until we've QOMified the CPU cores sufficiently > that we can do it properly.
Does that include calling the CPU constructor something else than cpu_arm_init (which is defined in target-arm/)? For me that would be enough to put it in hw/arm. Paolo
