On 23 January 2018 at 11:49, bzt bzt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> Can you send this as a proper patch email, not as a reply to
>> an existing email thread, please? (This makes our automated tooling
>> much happier.)
>
>
> Only if you're not demanding
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, bzt bzt wrote:
It is not annoying at all, it's simply silly. Are you really thought I
would do *your* job?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and the human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the former!". Actually I'm very entertained :-D :-D :-D
But seriously, I've
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 23 January 2018 at 11:13, bzt bzt wrote:
> > There's a huge misunderstanding here. I have a working qemu for about
> half a
> > year now, and I don't need it merged. It's not my goal to submit a patch
> to
> > qemu in any way, I just di
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 18 January 2018 at 21:39, bzt bzt wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Since you still haven't merged Alistair's patch, I decided to include it
> in
> > my own.
> > I've shrinked the number of modified files to two, that's the bare
> minimu
On 23 January 2018 at 11:13, bzt bzt wrote:
> There's a huge misunderstanding here. I have a working qemu for about half a
> year now, and I don't need it merged. It's not my goal to submit a patch to
> qemu in any way, I just did that because I had modified an Open Source
> software and wanted to
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:41 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, bzt bzt wrote:
>
>> Since you still haven't merged Alistair's patch, I decided to include it
>> in
>> my own.
>>
>
> Which patch exactly are you referring to?
The one I linked earlier, which also added CPU
On 18 January 2018 at 21:39, bzt bzt wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Since you still haven't merged Alistair's patch, I decided to include it in
> my own.
> I've shrinked the number of modified files to two, that's the bare minimum
> to support "-M raspi3" switch. Bcm2836.c modified minimally, the rest is
Hello,
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, bzt bzt wrote:
Since you still haven't merged Alistair's patch, I decided to include it in
my own.
Which patch exactly are you referring to? Please be patient and don't get
upset. Merging a patch can take some time, especially if code freeze and
holiday season are
Dear All,
Since you still haven't merged Alistair's patch, I decided to include it in
my own.
I've shrinked the number of modified files to two, that's the bare minimum
to support "-M raspi3" switch. Bcm2836.c modified minimally, the rest is in
raspi.c. I've renamed raspi2_init() to raspi_init() '
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Andrew Baumann <
andrew.baum...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > From: bzt bzt [mailto:bztem...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2017 03:27
>
> > Yes, I agree. I've provided a parameterised version on Oct 24, which
> does not
> > have a separate bcm2837 implement
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 28 November 2017 at 11:26, bzt bzt wrote:
> > (Although I have a question. I'm not sure what's the preferred
> > way to get MachineClass* object in bcm2836. Use a MachineState* cast on
> it's
> > Object* argument with MACHINE_GET_CLASS(
> From: bzt bzt [mailto:bztem...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2017 03:27
> Yes, I agree. I've provided a parameterised version on Oct 24, which does not
> have a separate bcm2837 implementation. Is that patch ok?
That patch was moving in the right direction, but I think there were two
On 28 November 2017 at 11:26, bzt bzt wrote:
> (Although I have a question. I'm not sure what's the preferred
> way to get MachineClass* object in bcm2836. Use a MachineState* cast on it's
> Object* argument with MACHINE_GET_CLASS() or should I use the parameterless
> qdev_get_machine() instead?)
Hi Andrew!
[...]
>
> In that case, IIRC my high-level suggestion was to either parameterise
> bcm2836 to take a CPU model string, or else move the CPU creation out of
> bcm2836.c into the board file. From what I've understood thus far about
> pi3, it does not seem necessary to have a separate bcm
> From: Peter Maydell [mailto:peter.mayd...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 25 November 2017 10:05
> On 25 November 2017 at 16:43, bzt bzt wrote:
> > Dear Andrew,
> >
> > A month passed, and the maintainers didn't gave a damn about raspi3
> support
> > in qemu. Any ideas?
>
> Sorry this patch fell
On 25 November 2017 at 16:43, bzt bzt wrote:
> Dear Andrew,
>
> A month passed, and the maintainers didn't gave a damn about raspi3 support
> in qemu. Any ideas?
Sorry this patch fell through the cracks, but it looked to me
to be in the state "patch got code review comments, waiting for
submitter
Dear Andrew,
A month passed, and the maintainers didn't gave a damn about raspi3 support
in qemu. Any ideas?
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:52 AM, bzt bzt wrote:
> Hi Andrew!
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Baumann <
> andrew.baum...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I see. The address
Hi Andrew!
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Baumann <
andrew.baum...@microsoft.com> wrote:
[...]
> I see. The address space size sounds like it would affect the SoC
> (although is there really 40 bits of usable physical address space beyond
> the core?). If it's like pi2, however, the wifi
> From: bzt bzt [mailto:bztem...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:54
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Andrew Baumann wrote:
> Are there any changes from bcm2836 other than the CPU model?
>
>
> Duplicating the whole file just to have a different CPU seems like a bad
> i
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:05 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
[...]
> Summa summarum, which one is preferred? Think of the future or keep it at a
>> bare minimum?
>>
>
> I don't feel I have a deciding word in this but to share my opinion I
> think it's better to keep it in one file avoiding too much cod
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, bzt bzt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Andrew Baumann
wrote:
+/* According to
https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/hardware/raspberrypi/bcm2837/
README.md
+ * The underlying architecture of the BCM2837 is identical to the
BCM2836.
The only significant
+ * d
Hi Andrew!
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Andrew Baumann <
andrew.baum...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > From: Qemu-devel On Behalf Of bzt bzt
> > Sent: Sunday, 22 October 2017 06:21
> >
> > I've added support for "-M raspi3" to qemu. This is my first patch, I
> hope
> > it's okay. The github repo i
> From: Qemu-devel On Behalf Of bzt bzt
> Sent: Sunday, 22 October 2017 06:21
>
> I've added support for "-M raspi3" to qemu. This is my first patch, I hope
> it's okay. The github repo is here: https://github.com/bztsrc/qemu-raspi3
> in case my patch does not work for some reason.
Thanks for the
Okay, thanks! Sorry I haven't splitted.
Best wishes,
Zoli (bzt)
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:34 AM, KONRAD Frederic <
frederic.kon...@adacore.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> I'd split the patch as there are different piece of work here.
>
> eg:
> bcm2835: checking that the paramet
Hi,
Thanks for your patch.
I'd split the patch as there are different piece of work here.
eg:
bcm2835: checking that the parameters are valid
adding bcm2837
adding raspi3
etc..
And you should run your patch through ./script/checkpatch.
See: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch
Thank
Dear All,
I've added support for "-M raspi3" to qemu. This is my first patch, I hope
it's okay. The github repo is here: https://github.com/bztsrc/qemu-raspi3
in case my patch does not work for some reason.
>From 1f10f957b57f336728097803bf8339a5577dd3c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: bzt
Date: S
26 matches
Mail list logo
