On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 09:46 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> >> My biggest fear is testing of the changes for the affected boards.
>> >> Peter, do you much coverage of these boards in your regressions?
On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 11:14 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 09:46 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> >> >> My biggest fear is testing of the changes for the affected boards.
>
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 June 2015 at 23:36, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote
>> This series introduced support for multi QOM properties with the same
>> name and then moves the ARM CPUs to the MPCore
On 14 June 2015 at 23:36, Peter Crosthwaite wrote
> This series introduced support for multi QOM properties with the same
> name and then moves the ARM CPUs to the MPCore container objects (yes!
> they are related!)
>
> The application of the QOM change is container
On 18 September 2015 at 17:46, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> The other one I have in need of a review is:
>
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-07/msg05891.html
Ah, data-driven device registers. I think I decided I didn't
personally care enough about
On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 09:46 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> >> My biggest fear is testing of the changes for the affected boards.
> >> Peter, do you much coverage of these boards in your regressions? Do you
> >> have automated tests in a git repo somewhere?
> >
> > The answers to these questions
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Peter Crosthwaite
peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com wrote:
Hi All,
This series introduced support for multi QOM properties with the same
name and then moves the ARM CPUs to the MPCore container objects (yes!
they are related!)
The application of the QOM change
On 15 Jun 2015, at 01:36, Peter Crosthwaite peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com
wrote:
Liviu recently brought up a desire for arguments to QOM constructors. P8
would probably be cleaner if this feature existed, as the number of CPUs
could be set as a constructor argument. There is no flexibility
Hi All,
This series introduced support for multi QOM properties with the same
name and then moves the ARM CPUs to the MPCore container objects (yes!
they are related!)
The application of the QOM change is container objects passing through
a single property on multiple same-type children as a