On 7 February 2018 at 17:28, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/02/2018 17:49, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Yeah, that's why I was wondering if buying an SoC as configurable IP was >>> a thing at all. In that case, I would just make things less >>> configurable and, if needed, hack the configurability with -global. >> >> So is that a vote for the aspeed style "create N different >> QOM types" ? > > Yeah, many types for the SoCs, each setting different properties on the > CPU/nvic/timers/etc. > >> It doesn't necessarily help with 'armv7m', which isn't an >> SoC, but just part of the way we currently model M profile CPUs. > > Does armv7m have a fixed or variable number of sub-objects? If it's > fixed, setting up forwarding properties is easy. But if even parts of > it are variable, it does get messy.
If the CPU supports the security extensions then it gets an extra timer device. (That typically doesn't need any properties forwarded it it, though.) I'll have a look at refactoring armv7m (again ;-)) into an armv7m-cortex-m3, armv7m-cortex-m4, and armv7m-cortex-m33. thanks -- PMM
