Re: [PATCH 04/24] aspeed: Don't create unwanted "ftgmac100", "aspeed-mmi" devices

[Andrew Jeffery]

On Mon, 18 May 2020, at 21:49, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 5/18/20 7:03 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > These devices are optional, and controlled by @nb_nics.
> > aspeed_soc_ast2600_init() and aspeed_soc_init() create the maximum
> > supported number.  aspeed_soc_ast2600_realize() and
> > aspeed_soc_realize() realize only the wanted number.  Works, although
> > it can leave unrealized devices hanging around in the QOM composition
> > tree.  Affects machines ast2500-evb, ast2600-evb, palmetto-bmc,
> > romulus-bmc, swift-bmc, tacoma-bmc, and witherspoon-bmc.
> > 
> > Make the init functions create only the wanted ones.  Visible in "info
> > qom-tree"; here's the change for ast2600-evb:
> > 
> >      /machine (ast2600-evb-machine)
> >        [...]
> >        /soc (ast2600-a1)
> >          [...]
> >          /ftgmac100[0] (ftgmac100)
> >            /ftgmac100[0] (qemu:memory-region)
> >     -    /ftgmac100[1] (ftgmac100)
> >     -    /ftgmac100[2] (ftgmac100)
> >     -    /ftgmac100[3] (ftgmac100)
> >          /gpio (aspeed.gpio-ast2600)
> >          [...]
> >          /mii[0] (aspeed-mmi)
> >            /aspeed-mmi[0] (qemu:memory-region)
> >     -    /mii[1] (aspeed-mmi)
> >     -    /mii[2] (aspeed-mmi)
> >     -    /mii[3] (aspeed-mmi)
> >          /rtc (aspeed.rtc)
> > 
> > I'm not sure creating @nb_nics devices makes sense.  How many does the
> > physical chip provide?
> 
> The AST2400, AST2500 SoC have 2 macs and the AST2600 has 4. Each machine
> define the one it uses, generally MAC0 but the tacoma board uses MAC3.
> 
> Shouldn't the model reflect the real address space independently from
> the NIC backends defined on the command line ?  

That's my feeling too, though I'm not sure what to make of the unrealised 
devices
in the QOM tree. Does it matter? It hasn't bothered me.

Andrew