On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:43 PM, nathan binkert <[email protected]> wrote: >> No, I don't think those should be SimObjects since they're really just >> handy abstractions for use internal to the I8042 (PS/2 keyboard and >> mouse controller). It would be reasonable, though, to still put >> serialization methods on them the I8042 could call so they manage their >> own data. The Channel structs of the IDE controller work like that I think. > > Unfortunately, serializing sub objects is a pain in the butt. Look at > how it is done in the various ethernet objects (like PacketFifo and > EtherPacket, etc.)
So should we be converting these subobjects to SimObjects to make it easier to serialize them? Joel previously ran into a bug with the timer object (the MCnnnn one) where the Tsunami code was properly calling its serialize/unserialize functions but the x86 wasn't, which would have been avoided if the timer had been a SimObject. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
