qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] QOM prop overloading + ARM MPCore CP


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] QOM prop overloading + ARM MPCore CPUs
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:28:08 +0100

On 14 June 2015 at 23:36, Peter Crosthwaite <address@hidden> wrote
> This series introduced support for multi QOM properties with the same
> name and then moves the ARM CPUs to the MPCore container objects (yes!
> they are related!)
>
> The application of the QOM change is container objects passing through
> a single property on multiple same-type children as a single alias. The
> immediate use case, is the ARM MPCore where we want to add N cpus but pass
> through the CPU properties for all of them as an alias on the container
> itself. The container property setter should fan out to all the CPUs in the
> container.
>
> Patches 1-5 implement overloaded properties as part of QOM. QOM
> properties do not allow overloading by default, the creator of the
> property has to switch it on.
>
> Patch 6 switches this feature on for alias properties which handles the
> container use case.
>
> Patch 8 is the feature presentation, pulling the CPUs into the ARM
> MPCore container. This is based on a series of Alistair's to do the same.
> This version does the extra refactoring to handle the case of multiple CPUs
> and the problems created around aliases.

Hi. I've been going through my to-review folder cleaning it out, and
I found this patchset from back in June in it. Sorry I never got round
to reviewing it back then. This is just a note to say that if you
care about this series you should rebase it and resend it and I'll
have a look at it then.

> My biggest fear is testing of the changes for the affected boards.
> Peter, do you much coverage of these boards in your regressions? Do you
> have automated tests in a git repo somewhere?

The answers to these questions are "nowhere near enough" and
"unfortunately not"...

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]