On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:42:25PM -0500, Michael Davidsaver wrote: > On 12/05/2017 01:53 AM, David Gibson wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 03:59:11PM -0600, Michael Davidsaver wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Davidsaver <mdavidsa...@gmail.com> > > > > Hmm. Is there anything you're *not* planning to move under the CCSR. > > Well, the decrementer/timebase initialization for one as this has > nothing to do with the CCSR registers.
Right, but no actual devices, even small ones?
> I haven't added the TSEC/eTSEC instances either.
> Partly this is because the existing boards, for reasons I don't understand,
> use virtio NICs.
>
> Further, the mpc8540 has TSEC instances 1 and 2, while the mpc8544
> has instances 1 and 3. So I decided to leave NIC setup to the Machine
> rather then add the extra code to parameterize this under the CCSR device.
>
> > If not, I'm really wondering if the CCSR ought to be a device in its
> > own right, rather than just a container memory region used within the
> > machine.
>
> I don't think I follow what you mean by "device" in this context?
> The CCSR object is a SysBusDevice in the qom tree ("/machine/e500-ccsr").
> What device-like characteristics could it have?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. the CCSR definitely *is* a device in the
current scheme, but I'm wondering if that was a good idea.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
