[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL 25/33] tests/acceptance: Add a test for the N800 and N810 arm

From: Igor Mammedov
Subject: Re: [PULL 25/33] tests/acceptance: Add a test for the N800 and N810 arm machines
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:54:34 +0100

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:26:59 +0000
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 13:37, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:  
> > > Hmm, maybe, maybe not. The original design idea here was that
> > > the boot loader code took a structure defining only the things
> > > that the bootloader needed to know. It doesn't really need to
> > > know about all the stuff that's in MachineState, which is
> > > the state structure for the machine.  
> >
> > Yep It doesn't need all data the MachineState contains, but then we end up
> > with this kind of bugs which could be avoided if duplication were not there.
> > And some of the fields in  MachineState are pure bootloader data.  
> I notice we already have arm_load_kernel() take a MachineState*
> and fill in the info->kernel_filename etc from the MachineState
> fields. I suppose we could do the same for a few more fields.
> I'm not very fond of the way that function takes the MachineState*,
> though. I think it would be nicer if the MachineState had a
> separate sub-struct which was "this is the stuff that's just
> data for the bootloader" and passed that, rather than throwing
> the entire state struct pointer around.

this should work for the most of copied fields but not for all,
(ram_size in this case).

> thanks
> -- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]