On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 01/31/2012 07:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> On 01.02.2012, at 02:35, Paul Brook wrote: >> >>>> We could also just change machine->init() and pass the dtb in there. In >>>> a >>>> QOM world these would become machine device properties anyways. >>>> >>>> machine->init(ram_size, boot_devices, >>>> kernel_filename, kernel_cmdline, initrd_filename, >>>> cpu_model); >>>> >>>> Essentially we shouldn't treat -dtb any different than -kernel or >>>> -initrd. >>>> It's also useful for more than ARM, namely embedded ppc systems. But I >>>> can >>>> easily post a follow-up patch for those. >>> >>> >>> Changing machine->init means you have to touch every single board file, >>> and >>> clone the exact same code for every machine that uses arm_boot.c. All of >>> which will be rewritten in the near future. >> >> >> Well, the dt file name would have to be passed into the generic arm_boot.c >> function, yes. But that's something that we need to do at one point in time >> either way, because machines will want to have default dtb file names. >> >>> machine->init is a particularly suckiy interface to start with, we want >>> to be >>> using it less, not more. It's not like we're going support multiple >>> machine >>> instanced. At least not before machine->init is removed altogether. >> >> >> I do see your point on not extending legacy interfaces though and not >> bloating up the patch. In fact, I'm indifferent enough on the actual >> implementation atm, as long as the command line interface (or whatever the >> user sees) is reasonably sane. And it is IMHO. So if it makes everything >> easier, do it using a global, but keep in mind that this will need >> refactoring. > > > Globals are even worse! > > Can't you hear the kernel loader begging to be turned into a device? It's > pleading with us to stop abusing other parts of QEMU and make it a first > class citizen of QEMU.
Is there some kind of initialisation phase where such a device can do its thing? Unless I'm missing something a "loader" device will be racing the rest of the VM after reset to populate the memory with the desired contents, no? John -- John Williams, PhD, B. Eng, B. IT PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663 f: +61-7-30090663
