On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:00:49AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 19.04.2012 20:27, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > By the way, do you still plan to make cpudefs register new
> > classes/types? I remember that you did that on a previous series.
>
> Generally I do, yes. However the CPU QOM'ificatio
Am 19.04.2012 20:27, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> By the way, do you still plan to make cpudefs register new
> classes/types? I remember that you did that on a previous series.
Generally I do, yes. However the CPU QOM'ification is not making as much
progress as I would've liked, specifically there's
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:11:04AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This series introduces some QOM properties for X86CPU, so that our built-in
> init code exercises the same code paths as QMP, as suggested by Eduardo:
> * "family",
> * "model",
> * "stepping" and
> * "model-id" (rather t
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:11:04AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This series introduces some QOM properties for X86CPU, so that our built-in
> init code exercises the same code paths as QMP, as suggested by Eduardo:
> * "family",
> * "model",
> * "stepping" and
> * "model-id" (rather t
Hello,
This series introduces some QOM properties for X86CPU, so that our built-in
init code exercises the same code paths as QMP, as suggested by Eduardo:
* "family",
* "model",
* "stepping" and
* "model-id" (rather than "model_id")
This QOM'ifies my previously introduced helper functions, adding
