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

[Peter Crosthwaite]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
>

Nice catch, A ping of this was on my todo. Ill add it to the queue of
stuff. The other one I have in need of a review is:

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-07/msg05891.html

>> 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"...
>

How hard would it be to do something Yocto powered? AFAIK Yocto only
supports the one ARM board (Vexpress), three (+ZynqMP, +Zynq) with the
Meta-Xilinx layer and there may be more with other layers (anything in
meta-linaro?). Can we bitbake something that builds out a large number
of ARM machines and tests them all on QEMU?

Regards,
Peter

> thanks
> -- PMM