On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:19:24AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015 12:22:59 +1000
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> > Currently although we have an sPAPRMachineState descended from MachineState
> > we don't have an sPAPRMAchineClass descended from MachineClass. So far it
> > hasn't been
On Tue, 26 May 2015 12:22:59 +1000
David Gibson wrote:
> Currently although we have an sPAPRMachineState descended from MachineState
> we don't have an sPAPRMAchineClass descended from MachineClass. So far it
> hasn't been needed, but several upcoming features are going to want it,
> so this pat
Currently although we have an sPAPRMachineState descended from MachineState
we don't have an sPAPRMAchineClass descended from MachineClass. So far it
hasn't been needed, but several upcoming features are going to want it,
so this patch creates a stub implementation.
Signed-off-by: Michael Roth
S
