On 07/11/2011 06:47 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 11 July 2011 16:29, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/11/2011 04:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
(Also if you have one bus type
per board then you're still very limited in what you can do with -device
because you can't plug in some random other sysbus devic
On 11 July 2011 16:29, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 04:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> (Also if you have one bus type
>> per board then you're still very limited in what you can do with -device
>> because you can't plug in some random other sysbus device anyway.)
>
> I'm not talking about o
On 07/11/2011 04:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
That's true, but the only way to plug in those device models would be with C
code. You cannot just play with -device to reconfigure them.
I think the C source level reuse is more important and more useful
than plugging stuff around with -device, bec
On 11 July 2011 13:48, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 12:46 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>Paolo wrote:
>>> Together with such
>>> a bus type there should be a single root board-specific device that is
>>> attached to SysBus. An interrupt controller is usually a good candidate
>>> for this beca
On 07/11/2011 12:46 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
One point I'd like clarification on is when you need to invent
a new bus type.
As rarely as possible, but as often as necessary? :P
New buses limit reusability of the models, but you need one whenever the
existing buses do not express how two devic
On 11 July 2011 11:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
This is cool; more qdev documentation is really useful.
One point I'd like clarification on is when you need to invent
a new bus type. Sometimes it's pretty obvious because there's
a real hardware bus type there (PCI, SCSI) that you're modelling.
It's
