Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposal for hw/ split

[Peter Maydell]

On 11 March 2013 11:54, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
> Il 11/03/2013 12:31, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> On 11 March 2013 11:17, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> hw/arm11mpcore.c                             hw/arm/arm11mpcore.c
>>
>> Two devices but I can split them if you insist.
>
> These are little more than SoC containers, aren't they?

They're container devices, yes. But why should container devices
go under hw/$ARCH ?

>>> hw/kvm/arm_gic.c                             hw/arm/kvm/arm_gic.c
>>
>> If we're going to move kvm specific devices out of hw/kvm I'd
>> rather they just went in hw/. It's an implementation detail that
>> a device's back end is KVM specific, so kvm_arm_gic.c should go
>> alongside arm_gic.c.
>
> I moved them to hw/ARCH because they really depend on the host kernel.

That's backwards. To the extent hw/ARCH is anything, it's stuff
specific to guest ARCH, not host ARCH.

I guess fundamentally my point here is I don't really see why
you're trying to move stuff into hw/ARCH at all. Better to find
a classification scheme that doesn't try to distinguish based
on guest architecture IMHO.

> Even the very same device might have a different interface on a
> different kernel.  But I can certainly move these to hw/SUBSYSTEM/kvm.
>
> (I think you said you disagree, but the next step for me would be to
> move hw/ARCH to target-ARCH/hw).

Yeah. If nothing else, for practical reasons: Anthony will take
pullreqs for hw/ but not for target-ARCH. Also target-ARCH already
has a nice clean definition of what code goes in it: it's the
code related to emulation of the ARCH CPU. Putting device code
into it would just break that definition for no particularly
obvious reason I can see (whilst also breaking the definition
that devices live under hw/).

-- PMM