在 2013-03-20三的 10:50 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > On 20 March 2013 00:56, li guang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > 在 2013-03-19二的 10:15 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > >> The point is that how exactly power controllers connect > >> to devices, and which devices respond to reset/suspend/etc > >> is a property of the individual machine being modelled. > >> An x86 PC will be different from an ARM devboard which is > >> different again from the Exynos4 ARM SoC. So to allow this > >> flexibility, you have to let the machine model do the configuration, > >> which you do by having the model wire up the power controller > >> to the devices in the same way it's done on hardware. > > > > agree, originally, I made all devices can realize the power > > state callbacks, e.g. if one can do suspend, then it will > > realize DeviceState::suspend, so if system go to suspend, > > this method will be called. > > do you want some explicit way to configure for machine's > > devices if they can support power state changes? > > The devices should just implement appropriate signals/connections > if they have a means of talking to a power controller, and the > board model should wire them up. That's all.
Hmm, can you give some demo of signals implementation? (I'm hesitating to say do you mean signal() or sigaction()? :) ) > > >> >> Hardware does it with signals, so should we. > >> > > >> > can these signals be viewed as the calling of corresponding methods? > >> > >> In some ways, they are -- but the wiring up of the source of > >> the call to the implementation is done at runtime as devices > >> are connected together. > > > > So, can I go ahead to do this work? > > Well, it's not for me to say what you should do, but you > still seem to be trying to do this with device methods, > which (as I've argued above) I think is the wrong approach. > > -- PMM
