On 11/24/2010 10:21 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:14:22PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/24/2010 06:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Why would we specify a PIIX3 device based on a configuration file?
There is only one PIIX3 device in the world. I don't see a lot of
need to create arbitrary types of devices.
Why deny this flexibility from those who need it for modelling
different HW?
The various components exist and can be reused.
So you are saying lets use code as data for some and config files for
others. If you have support for building chipsets from data why not
simply have 440fx.cfg somewhere? Besides what qemu provides no is not
stock PIIX3. We have parts of PIIX4 for power management.
Besides, as I said, PIIX3 is ISA bridge and this
is what class should implement.
Isn't it an ISA bridge + a few ISA devices?
Why? Because they happen to be on the same silicon? So then in SoC
all devices are in cpu?
They *aren't* ISA devices. Look at the PIIX3 spec. All of the ports
for these devices are positively decoded and not sent over the ISA bus.
You could model them as being behind the ISA bus but you could also
model them as being behind the PCI bus.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
We have fw_cfg on ISA bus too
which does not exits on real HW and we may want to have other
devices. We should be able to add them without changing PIIX3
class.
fw_cfg should certainly not be a member of PIIX3.
It is really not much different from others.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
