Am 07.02.2012 20:06, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 7 February 2012 18:41, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 07.02.2012 18:47, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 3 February 2012 02:59, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> + uint64_t jtag_id; >>> >>> If we're not using this anywhere we should just not have it. >> >> Andrzej will have had his reasons to put it in the code. This series >> just moves code around so I don't want to remove it without his ack. > > That was my point -- as far as I can see this patch *is* adding code > and a struct field that wasn't there before.
Huh? Look closely, it *was* a comment in the original code. And I don't want to *move* that comment over into my new code. Therefore I'm adding a class field where such informational data can properly be stored and inspected - per class, not per CPUState instance. I can imagine storing much more information in a CPU class such as vendor name*, description, logo, link to docs and chip color ;) to allow for a nice lspci-like inspection. * Yeah, in case of ARM the vendor can be inferred from CPUID so a getter would be sufficient but you get the idea. Again, I don't specifically need a jtag_id field, but this data is definitely coming from existing code. If Andrzej doesn't respond here, feel free to send a trivial patch to remove it from there. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
