|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8 |
Date: | Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:36:45 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.10 |
On 02/10/2011 09:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden> wrote:So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386:2) get rid of the entire concept of machines. Creating a i440fx is essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine.Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386? The concept of a machine model seems a pretty obvious one for ARM boards, for instance, and I'm not sure we'd gain much by having i386 be different to the other architectures...
Yes, it makes a lot of sense, I just don't know the component names as well so bear with me :-)
There are two types of Versatile machines today, Versatile/AB and Versatile/PB. They are both made with the same core, ARM926EJ-S, with different expansions.
So you would model arm926ej-s as the chipset and then build up the machines by modifying parameters of the chipset (like the board id) and/or adding different components on top of it.
A good way to think about what I'm proposing is that machine->init really should be a constructor for a device object.
Regards, Anthony Liguori
-- PMM
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |