Am 16.06.2014 12:34, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> However a more fundamental issue that PMM was unsure about is whether >> the CPUs should be child<> of MPCore as done here or a sibling of the >> MPCore container. >> > > I'll go with child. The CPU does not exist outside the MPCore. They > are a heirachy, not-peers and the qom-composition should reflect that.
Well, for Cortex-A9 that may work. But Cortex-A15 (and Cortex-A5x if existant by now) should also be refactored alongside, as proof of concept - can you really create num_cpu cortex-a15 CPUs on the MPCore for a big.LITTLE configuration? I'd be really surprised if there were separate MPCore devices per cluster. That would then indicate that the homogeneity assumption among CPUs within an MPCore is wrong and we need to let its parent create the CPUs rather than an MPCore property. Besides, not all CPUs have an MPCore, Cortex-A8 and Cortex-A5 come to mind, so we should be aware that ARMCPU child<>s on the MPCore will lead to asymmetry between SoCs. But that shouldn't stop proper Cortex-A9/-A15 modeling, just like Quark and Baytrail SoCs will inevitably lead to modeling differences in the PC world. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
