On 12/29/2011 11:10 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > Even if that turns out to be the case, it's fine. Better to > > have a few good devices than dozens of bad ones. > > This is easier to say on the x86 side of the fence, since > most of the devices you need are already in the codebase and > nobody is going to throw them out again if tests don't get > written for them :-) > > There are lots of things where I'd rather have a "tested by > booting a guest OS" implementation than none at all (like audio > support for the versatile/etc boards, which went in recently) or > TrustZone support (not in yet but may be along later). At least > then we have something that works for most people and something > we can fix bugs in, rather than a gaping hole in capability. >
We can have different criteria for different parts of the tree. Undesirable, but tradeoffs have to be made. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
