On 10.07.2025 03:59, dm...@proton.me wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:33:04AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 24.06.2025 09:31, dm...@proton.me wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 07:50:33AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.06.2025 05:56, dm...@proton.me wrote:
>>>>> From: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Move PL011 emulator to the new location for UART emulators.
>>>>>
>>>>> No functional change intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> xen/arch/arm/Kconfig | 7 -------
>>>>> xen/arch/arm/Makefile | 1 -
>>>>> xen/drivers/Kconfig | 2 ++
>>>>> xen/drivers/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>> xen/drivers/vuart/Kconfig | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>> xen/drivers/vuart/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>> .../arm/vpl011.c => drivers/vuart/vuart-pl011.c} | 0
>>>>> 7 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 xen/drivers/vuart/Kconfig
>>>>> create mode 100644 xen/drivers/vuart/Makefile
>>>>> rename xen/{arch/arm/vpl011.c => drivers/vuart/vuart-pl011.c} (100%)
>>>>
>>>> I question the placement under drivers/. To me, driver != emulator. I
>>>> wonder what others think. But yes, we already have drivers/vpci/. That
>>>> may want moving then ...
>>>
>>> re: driver != emulator: I agree; but I followed drivers/vpci.
>>>
>>> Do you think common/vuart would be a better location?
>>
>> Or maybe common/emul/... This wants discussing, I think.
>
> Will something like the following work
> common/hvm/vuart
> ?
Not really, emulators may not be limited to HVM. But iirc common/emul/ is
what we settled on anyway at the last Community Call?
Jan
