On 2011-03-07 15:57, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/07/2011 01:58 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-03-07 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
> It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
> command line.
>
On 03/07/2011 01:58 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-03-07 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
command line.
I thought it was stated before that there is no guarantee on the
On 2011-03-07 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
>>> command line.
>>>
>> I thought it was stated before that there is no guarantee on the
>> internal structure of our device tree as
On 03/06/2011 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's far from academic as this is user-visible and visible via the
command line.
I thought it was stated before that there is no guarantee on the
internal structure of our device tree as the user may explore it (as
long as it's stable for the guest
On 2011-03-06 21:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> In the system we model, the PIT is part of the PIIX3. The right way to
>>> model it is as a DeviceState that's no_user=1 and created as part of the
>>> initialized of PIIX3 (for the PC at least).
>>>
>>> LP
On 03/06/2011 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
In the system we model, the PIT is part of the PIIX3. The right way to
model it is as a DeviceState that's no_user=1 and created as part of the
initialized of PIIX3 (for the PC at least).
LPC is still an expansion bus and it's primarily used for discret
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>> In the system we model, the PIT is part of the PIIX3. The right way to
>>> model it is as a DeviceState that's no_user=1 and created as part of the
>>> initialized of PIIX3 (for the PC at l
On 2011-03-06 18:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 10:47 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> The PIT is not an ISA device. Modelling it as such is worse than
>>> leaving it
>>> unmodelled.
>>>
>> No. These days, PIT is part of Super I/O chip, which is accessed via
>> LPC bus. LPC is from soft
On 2011-03-06 17:06, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-03-06 16:35, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
>
...
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-03-06 16:35, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
ind
On 2011-03-06 16:35, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
>>> index 60f8c42..feb8a7a 100644
>>> --- a/hw/pc.h
>>> +++ b/hw/pc.h
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
>>
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
>> index 60f8c42..feb8a7a 100644
>> --- a/hw/pc.h
>> +++ b/hw/pc.h
>> @@ -82,14 +82,23 @@ void isa_irq_handler(void *
On 2011-02-13 22:10, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Convert to qdev. Don't expose PITState.
>
...
> diff --git a/hw/pc.h b/hw/pc.h
> index 60f8c42..feb8a7a 100644
> --- a/hw/pc.h
> +++ b/hw/pc.h
> @@ -82,14 +82,23 @@ void isa_irq_handler(void *opaque, int n, int level);
>
> #define PIT_FREQ 1193182
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
