On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 04:49:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 5 July 2018 at 16:45, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 30 June 2018 at 10:13, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> The ARMv7-M code is largely similar to what other M Profile CPUs need.
> >> Extract the common M Profile aspects into the ARMMProfileState base
> >> class.  ARMv6-M will inherit from this class in the following patch.
> >>
> >> It might be possible to make ARMv6-M the base class of ARMv7-M, but it
> >> seems cleaner to have an M Profile base class instead of saying an
> >> "ARMv7-M is an ARMv6-M".
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
> >
> > This makes sense, I guess (though it currently leaves us in the
> > odd position that we have separate a object for v6m, but the v7m
> > object handles both v7m and v8m...)
> ...though I guess the counter-argument is that the only thing that
> the v7m object is doing that v6m doesn't want is creating
> the bitbanding device, and in fact bitbanding is optional in v7m
> (you can configure a Cortex-M3 without it). So maybe we should
> instead just have a QOM property to let you turn off the
> bitbanding ?

Okay, we can do that.  So how about a single ARMMProfileState class for
v6, v7, and v8?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to