On 19 November 2012 08:44, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> I had a look at a11 SCU and it seems to have functional overlap. Could
> parameterise the differences to remove some code replication in the
> process. QOM string property for versions "a9" "a11" etc?
I don't think that's worth doing, really.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 November 2012 05:23, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote:
>> Im currently doing some re-factoring in and around the A9mpcore for
>> our work on dynamic machine model creation. Id like to change the SCU
>> component currently implemented in a9mpc
On 19 November 2012 05:23, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> Im currently doing some re-factoring in and around the A9mpcore for
> our work on dynamic machine model creation. Id like to change the SCU
> component currently implemented in a9mpcore to be its own QOM object,
> just like with the GIC and the
Hi All,
Im currently doing some re-factoring in and around the A9mpcore for
our work on dynamic machine model creation. Id like to change the SCU
component currently implemented in a9mpcore to be its own QOM object,
just like with the GIC and the mptimer. Any reasons not to? Would this
change be a