Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>
> - I guess there is same reasy why you want to split the device state,
> it could be on the other series where I haven't read it though.
>>>
>>> So this is exactly what I have done in the SSI. Correct me if I am
>>> wrong but it is the same setup as PCI wh
- I guess there is same reasy why you want to split the device state,
it could be on the other series where I haven't read it though.
>>
>> So this is exactly what I have done in the SSI. Correct me if I am
>> wrong but it is the same setup as PCI where the VMSTATE_PCI_DEVICE
>> (V
Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 14 August 2012 09:27, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>> "Peter A. G. Crosthwaite" wrote:
Hi All. PMM raised a query on a recent series of mine (the SSI series)
about
handling VMSD for devices which
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 09:27, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> "Peter A. G. Crosthwaite" wrote:
>>> Hi All. PMM raised a query on a recent series of mine (the SSI series) about
>>> handling VMSD for devices which define state at multiple levels of the QO
On 14 August 2012 09:27, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "Peter A. G. Crosthwaite" wrote:
>> Hi All. PMM raised a query on a recent series of mine (the SSI series) about
>> handling VMSD for devices which define state at multiple levels of the QOM
>> heirachy.
> - If you ask me, I would very much preffer
"Peter A. G. Crosthwaite" wrote:
> Hi All. PMM raised a query on a recent series of mine (the SSI series) about
> handling VMSD for devices which define state at multiple levels of the QOM
> heirachy. Rather than complicate the discussion over in my series im trying to
> start the discussion with
