Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/20] arm: add Faraday a360 SoC platform support

[Kuo-Jung Su]

2013/2/18 Andreas Färber <address@hidden>:
> Am 06.02.2013 10:45, schrieb Kuo-Jung Su:
>> +typedef struct FaradayMachState {
>> +    ARMCPU       *cpu;
>> +    DeviceState  *scu;
>> +    DeviceState  *ahbc;
>> +    DeviceState  *ddrc;
>> +    DeviceState  *hdma[2];  /* AHB DMA */
>> +    DeviceState  *pdma[2];  /* APB DMA */
>> +    i2c_bus      *i2c[2];
>> +
>> +    MemoryRegion *as;
>> +    MemoryRegion *ram;
>> +    MemoryRegion *ram_alias;
>> +    pflash_t     *rom;
>> +    MemoryRegion *sram;
>> +
>> +    uint32_t ahb_slave4;    /* AHB slave 4 default value */
>> +    uint32_t ahb_slave6;    /* AHB slave 6 default value */
>> +    uint32_t ahb_remapped:1;
>> +    uint32_t ddr_inited:1;
>> +} FaradayMachState;
>
> I think you need to distinguish what's on the SoC and what's on the
> evaluation board there...
>
> For the SoC you can have a QOM type with DeviceState parent, but the
> stuff on the board should stay separate. Instead of pointers you should
> use the actual types (i.e., add field when you introduce the device
> model). This will work out-of-the box for your own devices and will work
> for ARMCPU once my pull is applied. The purpose would be container-like
> grouping of devices and sharing across boards.
> However, as Peter pointed out, devices should avoid fiddling with each
> other's internals even if they have access to a pointer/field.
>

I guess now I understand what's wrong here.

Since 'A36x' is actually a code name for SoC, and the 'A36xEVB' is the
target board (PCB).
So I should create a A36x instance with DeviceState rather than QEMUMachine.
Am I correct?

> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg



--
Best wishes,
Kuo-Jung Su