On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 20:51, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 18.04.2012 22:35, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On 04/18/2012 03:28 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 21:33, Anthony Liguori
>>> wrote:
Kernel loading is a hack. I'll go out on a limb and say that most
no
Am 18.04.2012 22:35, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 04/18/2012 03:28 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 21:33, Anthony Liguori
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Kernel loading is a hack. I'll go out on a limb and say that most
>>> non-x86
>>> boards are doing it completely wrong. Messing aroun
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 20:35, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 03:28 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 21:33, Anthony Liguori
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/17/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 17 April 2012 21:43, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
>
> On Tu
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:59, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 21:43, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:31, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> Well, it could. But we should make that decision based on whether it
>>> makes sense and has a use case for actual users of the board, no
On 04/18/2012 03:28 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 21:33, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 04/17/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 17 April 2012 21:43, Blue Swirlwrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:31, Peter Maydell
wrote:
Well, it could. But we should make that decision
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 21:33, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> On 17 April 2012 21:43, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:31, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
Well, it could. But we should make that decision based on whether it
Am 18.04.2012 14:09, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 04/18/2012 03:36 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 17 April 2012 22:33, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Kernel loading is a hack. I'll go out on a limb and say that most
>>> non-x86
>>> boards are doing it completely wrong. Messing around with CPU state
On 04/18/2012 03:36 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 17 April 2012 22:33, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Kernel loading is a hack. I'll go out on a limb and say that most non-x86
boards are doing it completely wrong. Messing around with CPU state has no
business in machine init. It creates horrible depen
On 17 April 2012 22:33, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Kernel loading is a hack. I'll go out on a limb and say that most non-x86
> boards are doing it completely wrong. Messing around with CPU state has no
> business in machine init. It creates horrible dependencies about RAM
> initialization order a
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 21:19, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:58, Max Filippov wrote:
>>> What is the use case of the default board?
>>
>> If an architecture has multiple boards, the default board can be used
>> without using -M
Am 17.04.2012 22:51, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 17 April 2012 21:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:27, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
ARM has a default board set, which is unfortunate because it's
hardware that nobody u
On 04/17/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 17 April 2012 21:43, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
Well, it could. But we should make that decision based on whether it
makes sense and has a use case for actual users of the board, not
because we're tryin
On 17 April 2012 21:43, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Well, it could. But we should make that decision based on whether it
>> makes sense and has a use case for actual users of the board, not
>> because we're trying to get away with not having a setup
On 17 April 2012 21:51, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 17 April 2012 21:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:27, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
ARM has a default board set, which is unfortunate because it's
hardware that nobody
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 21:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:27, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> ARM has a default board set, which is unfortunate because it's
>>> hardware that nobody uses now, so the QEMU default setting
>>> mostly
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 21:24, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:33, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> Just testing a device shouldn't require running a particular
>>> board model either, of course.
>>
>> The goal is obviously to make compr
On 17 April 2012 21:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> ARM has a default board set, which is unfortunate because it's
>> hardware that nobody uses now, so the QEMU default setting
>> mostly serves to trip up users who try to run a kernel for
>> some oth
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 21:19, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:58, Max Filippov wrote:
>>> What is the use case of the default board?
>>
>> If an architecture has multiple boards, the default board can be used
>> without using -M opt
On 17 April 2012 21:24, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:33, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Just testing a device shouldn't require running a particular
>> board model either, of course.
>
> The goal is obviously to make comprehensive tests for all devices in
> all boards. Also, if a devic
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:00, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 02:44 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> Il 17/04/2012 09:33, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
I think the issue is that all of these machines mandate a -kernel
option.
qtest doesn't care if you pass a -kernel but requ
On 17 April 2012 21:19, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:58, Max Filippov wrote:
>> What is the use case of the default board?
>
> If an architecture has multiple boards, the default board can be used
> without using -M option.
Unless the Xtensa architecture has a particular board
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:33, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 02:16, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 04/16/2012 05:54 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Yuck! Nack, this is way too invasive. Testing frameworks
>>> shouldn't require random pointless changes to every board
>>> model.
>>
>> I think
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:58, Max Filippov wrote:
>> Skip ROM or kernel loading and TCG init for qtest.
>>
>> For Xtensa there is no default board and the
>
> What is the use case of the default board?
If an architecture has multiple boards, the default board can be used
without using -M option.
On 04/17/2012 02:44 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/04/2012 09:33, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
I think the issue is that all of these machines mandate a -kernel option.
qtest doesn't care if you pass a -kernel but requiring a kernel in order to
test a device sucks especially if you don't possess
Il 17/04/2012 09:33, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> > I think the issue is that all of these machines mandate a -kernel option.
> > qtest doesn't care if you pass a -kernel but requiring a kernel in order to
> > test a device sucks especially if you don't possess the toolchain to build
> > such a ker
On 17 April 2012 02:16, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 05:54 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Yuck! Nack, this is way too invasive. Testing frameworks
>> shouldn't require random pointless changes to every board
>> model.
>
> I think the issue is that all of these machines mandate a -kernel opt
On 04/16/2012 05:54 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 15 April 2012 17:32, Blue Swirl wrote:
Skip ROM or kernel loading and TCG init for qtest.
For Xtensa there is no default board and the
default board (g3beige) for PPCEMB seems to be wrong.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
---
hw/an5206.c
On 15 April 2012 17:32, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Skip ROM or kernel loading and TCG init for qtest.
>
> For Xtensa there is no default board and the
> default board (g3beige) for PPCEMB seems to be wrong.
>
> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
> ---
> hw/an5206.c | 4 +-
> hw/axis_dev88.c
> Skip ROM or kernel loading and TCG init for qtest.
>
> For Xtensa there is no default board and the
What is the use case of the default board?
Are there any specific requirements for it?
--
Thanks.
-- Max
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 20:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 04/15/2012 11:32 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> Skip ROM or kernel loading and TCG init for qtest.
>>
>> For Xtensa there is no default board and the
>> default board (g3beige) for PPCEMB seems to be wrong.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
>
>
On 04/15/2012 11:32 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
Skip ROM or kernel loading and TCG init for qtest.
For Xtensa there is no default board and the
default board (g3beige) for PPCEMB seems to be wrong.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
Why tcg_enabled() vs. !qtest_enabled()?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
---
31 matches
Mail list logo
