On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:26:59 +0000 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 13:37, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > Hmm, maybe, maybe not. The original design idea here was that > > > the boot loader code took a structure defining only the things > > > that the bootloader needed to know. It doesn't really need to > > > know about all the stuff that's in MachineState, which is > > > the state structure for the machine. > > > > Yep It doesn't need all data the MachineState contains, but then we end up > > with this kind of bugs which could be avoided if duplication were not there. > > And some of the fields in MachineState are pure bootloader data. > > I notice we already have arm_load_kernel() take a MachineState* > and fill in the info->kernel_filename etc from the MachineState > fields. I suppose we could do the same for a few more fields. > I'm not very fond of the way that function takes the MachineState*, > though. I think it would be nicer if the MachineState had a > separate sub-struct which was "this is the stuff that's just > data for the bootloader" and passed that, rather than throwing > the entire state struct pointer around. this should work for the most of copied fields but not for all, (ram_size in this case). > > thanks > -- PMM >
