On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 11 July 2017 at 15:33, Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Model the ARM MPS2/MPS2+ FPGA based development board.
>>>
>>> The MPS2 and MPS2+ dev boards are FPGA based (the 2+ has a bigger
>>> FPGA but is otherwise the same as the 2). Since the CPU itself
>>> and most of the devices are in the FPGA, the details of the board
>>> as seen by the guest depend significantly on the FPGA image.
>>>
>>> We model the following FPGA images:
>>> "mps2_an385" -- Cortex-M3 as documented in ARM Application Note AN385
>>> "mps2_an511" -- Cortex-M3 'DesignStart' as documented in AN511
>>>
>>> They are fairly similar but differ in the details for some
>>> peripherals.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs | 1 +
>>> hw/arm/mps2.c | 273
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 275 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 hw/arm/mps2.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/Makefile.objs b/hw/arm/Makefile.objs
>>> index 4c5c4ee..a2e56ec 100644
>>> --- a/hw/arm/Makefile.objs
>>> +++ b/hw/arm/Makefile.objs
>>> @@ -18,3 +18,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_IMX25) += fsl-imx25.o imx25_pdk.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_IMX31) += fsl-imx31.o kzm.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_IMX6) += fsl-imx6.o sabrelite.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_ASPEED_SOC) += aspeed_soc.o aspeed.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_MPS2) += mps2.o
>>
>> Is this file name possibly too generic? Should it be arm-mps2 instead.
>
> It's already in hw/arm/, and we don't ever do anything that
> confuses foo.o in one directory with foo.o in another.
> (Also none of the other board or SoCs have 'arm' prepended.)
>
>> I don't see any other boards with the same name from a Google search,
>> but it just seems a bit vague having a three letter acronym.
>
>>> +#define TYPE_MPS2_MACHINE "mps2"
>>
>> This public name seems too common as well. I am just worried it'll
>> conflict with something one day.
>
> I can see the issue, but on the other hand the type name is not
> external ABI, so we can always rename it later if we have to.
That's true, but it's still not ideal to be changing device names willy nilly.
> The board names themselves (mps2-an385 and mps2-an511) on the
> other hand we have to get right from the start. I'm not sure
> tacking an arm- on the front of those helps; they're already
> pretty ungainly.
I think the boards are already long enough to be unique and probably
don't need an 'arm-'. Although I think having the vendor name does
clarify what the board is. Imagine a user is querying QEMU for what
boards it supports and sees a board name they don't recognise. It will
be a lot easier to figure out what board this is is you search "ARM
MPS2" instead of just MPS2.
>
> The other possible name floating around here is "v2m-mps",
> which at least some of the docs refer to as the name of
> the motherboard. There's a lot of just of just plain "MPS2", though.
I guess what we generally do is copy the spec/datasheet. So if it is
in there then the name is fine.
>
> (I note that we've had 'kzm' and 'z2' since forever and they
> haven't ever conflicted with anything despite being pretty short.)
Good point.
>
> I dunno; I'll have a think about it. Naming is hard...
>
>>> +
>>> + MemoryRegion *system_memory = get_system_memory();
>>> +
>>> + DeviceState *armv7m;
>>
>> These should be at the top of the function.
>
> Fixed (along with the 'sccdev' added to the DeviceState
> line in a later patch).
>
>>> + create_unimplemented_device("CMSDK APB peripheral region @0x40000000",
>>> + 0x40000000, 0x00010000);
>>> + create_unimplemented_device("CMSDK peripheral region @0x40010000",
>>> + 0x40010000, 0x00010000);
>>> + create_unimplemented_device("Extra peripheral region @0x40020000",
>>> + 0x40020000, 0x00010000);
>>> + create_unimplemented_device("RESERVED 4", 0x40030000, 0x001D0000);
>>> + create_unimplemented_device("Ethernet", 0x40200000, 0x00100000);
>>> + create_unimplemented_device("VGA", 0x41000000, 0x0200000);
>>
>> I did not know this was an option, this is pretty cool.
>
> Yeah. It's really nice for bringing up a board model because
> you can just add -d unimp to your command line and get the
> info about what devices the guest is prodding that you need
> to implement next.
Yeah, this is great!
Thanks,
Alistair
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
