On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:38:21 +0100 (CET)
BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Zoltan,
On 1/6/21 10:13 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
The vt82c686b-pm model can be shared between VT82C686B and VT8231. The
only
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:38:21 +0100 (CET)
BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hi Zoltan,
> >
> > On 1/6/21 10:13 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> >> The vt82c686b-pm model can be shared between VT82C686B and VT8231. The
> >> only difference between the two is
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Zoltan,
On 1/6/21 10:13 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
The vt82c686b-pm model can be shared between VT82C686B and VT8231. The
only difference between the two is the device id in what we emulate so
make an abstract via-pm model by renaming
Hi Zoltan,
On 1/6/21 10:13 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> The vt82c686b-pm model can be shared between VT82C686B and VT8231. The
> only difference between the two is the device id in what we emulate so
> make an abstract via-pm model by renaming appropriately and add types
> for vt82c686b-pm and
The vt82c686b-pm model can be shared between VT82C686B and VT8231. The
only difference between the two is the device id in what we emulate so
make an abstract via-pm model by renaming appropriately and add types
for vt82c686b-pm and vt8231-pm based on it.
Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan
---
