Hi Peter, <quote>
* You're probably better off having the device in one patch and the board model in another, rather than combining them.* * Generally, device models don't live in hw/<arch>, only board models. Put the device model in the appropriate subdirectory of hw/, which is 'misc' for this one.* * So what actually is this device? Is it something that corresponds to real hardware, or to some other emulator's debug/test device, or something we've just made up? This is a good place to put a comment answering this kind of question (with links or references to documentation if relevant).* </quote> as far as I understand from AVR specs each board has its own mapping of IO registers, so this sample_io device is a part of the board itself. Generally a device, as I see it, can be put on any board regardless of CPU, here in AVR some IO registers are mapped into CPU registers. So it makes it a part of the architecture itself. <quote> * Don't enable debug by default.* </quote> My fault. I will disable it in the next version. I will do it with another fixes if there are any. <quote> * If you order things the other way up you won't need all these forward declarations.* </quote> I am compiling on MAC, and gcc/clang keeps complaining that the function do not have declaration, regardless of their order. <quote> * As Richard says you have problems with trying to write CPU registers from a device anyway, but please consider trying to have some level of abstraction rather than* * just having the device code reach into the CPU object. The general model here is real hardware and devices, and a real device has no access into the inside workings of another one except via whatever interfaces the other device explicitly provides. (Better still would be if we don't need to do any of this at all, because it gets pretty ugly pretty quickly. The guest has access to its own registers by definition, so having a second way to read and write them via memory is a bit weird.)* </quote> The code is already fixed. And yes this is weird but this is the architecture. Regards, Michael On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 July 2016 at 19:15, Michael Rolnik <mrol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > Are there more pending issues with my code? > > Most of the issues I raised with the board model/device > level code still seem to be present. > > thanks > -- PMM > -- Best Regards, Michael Rolnik
