On 8 March 2013 07:37, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> Its all out of tree using out device tree driven machine instantiation
> but we are toying with the idea of moving away from that in favour of
> -device and friends (2100 less lines out of tree code for me), once
> the aforementioned fixes to sysbu
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 March 2013 20:45, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>>> Case four: "we really don't expect anybody to be trying to wire this
>>> up dynamically", which would apply to things like the on-cpu peripherals
>>> for some ARM cores.
>>
>> What ARM cores
Anthony Liguori writes:
> Markus Armbruster writes:
>
>> Anthony Liguori writes:
>>
>>> Markus Armbruster writes:
>>>
Peter Maydell writes:
>>> [and I don't think "this device
>>> can be added via the monitor but not the command line"
>>> counts as co
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
>
>> Markus Armbruster writes:
>>
>>> Peter Maydell writes:
>> [and I don't think "this device
>> can be added via the monitor but not the command line"
>> counts as consistent or coherent...]
>
>
Anthony Liguori writes:
> Markus Armbruster writes:
>
>> Peter Maydell writes:
> [and I don't think "this device
> can be added via the monitor but not the command line"
> counts as consistent or coherent...]
no_user applies equally to -device and
On 8 March 2013 00:09, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> What is -devices help trying to show? Devices that are valid to for a
> user to pass? Hint: on a PC, the only thing that's valid to add are
> devices that implement a certain bus type. In fact, it depends on the
> bus model.
Yeah, I think part of
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Peter Maydell writes:
[and I don't think "this device
can be added via the monitor but not the command line"
counts as consistent or coherent...]
>>>
>>> no_user applies equally to -device and device_add.
>>
>> In the codebase a
On 7 March 2013 20:45, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> Case four: "we really don't expect anybody to be trying to wire this
>> up dynamically", which would apply to things like the on-cpu peripherals
>> for some ARM cores.
>
> What ARM cores were you thinking here exactly? We are already doing
> dynam
Hi Peter,
[snip]
> Case four: "we really don't expect anybody to be trying to wire this
> up dynamically", which would apply to things like the on-cpu peripherals
> for some ARM cores.
What ARM cores were you thinking here exactly? We are already doing
dynamic machine creation of ARM systems incl
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 7 March 2013 16:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Can we make some progress towards something that makes more sense?
>>
>> First step: reasons for marking a device no_user.
>>
>> From a user point of view, I think there's just one: -device/device_add
>> cannot possibly r
On 7 March 2013 16:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Can we make some progress towards something that makes more sense?
>
> First step: reasons for marking a device no_user.
>
> From a user point of view, I think there's just one: -device/device_add
> cannot possibly result in a working device. Cohe
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 5 March 2013 04:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 04/03/2013 18:58, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> Mass-mark these devices as no_user.
>>> "There is no such thing as a 'no-user' device" -- Anthony
>>> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-01/msg00896.html)
On 03/05/13 11:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/03/2013 00:22, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> Yes, the right thing to do would be to QOMify memory regions and
>>> introduce pins, but that's a bit more than the amount of time I have now
>>> for this.
>>
>> ...plus it means that when we do have these
Il 05/03/2013 00:22, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> Yes, the right thing to do would be to QOMify memory regions and
>> introduce pins, but that's a bit more than the amount of time I have now
>> for this.
>
> ...plus it means that when we do have these things we
> have to go round and identify the
On 5 March 2013 04:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 04/03/2013 18:58, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> > Mass-mark these devices as no_user.
>> "There is no such thing as a 'no-user' device" -- Anthony
>> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-01/msg00896.html)
>>
>> We should figure out wha
Il 04/03/2013 18:58, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > Mass-mark these devices as no_user.
> "There is no such thing as a 'no-user' device" -- Anthony
> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-01/msg00896.html)
>
> We should figure out what we might be trying to use 'no-user'
> for, and co
On 5 March 2013 01:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> These features require creating the device specially from board
> code. Therefore, devices that use it cannot be created with
> -device. (And some of them are even visible in binaries for
> qemu-system-x86_64, for example the sysbus EHCI device).
>
>
These features require creating the device specially from board
code. Therefore, devices that use it cannot be created with
-device. (And some of them are even visible in binaries for
qemu-system-x86_64, for example the sysbus EHCI device).
Mass-mark these devices as no_user.
Signed-off-by: Pao
18 matches
Mail list logo
