On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:42:25PM -0500, Michael Davidsaver wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 01:53 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 03:59:11PM -0600, Michael Davidsaver wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Davidsaver <mdavidsaver@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Hmm.  Is there anything you're *not* planning to move under the CCSR.
> 
> Well, the decrementer/timebase initialization for one as this has
> nothing to do with the CCSR registers.

Right, but no actual devices, even small ones?

> I haven't added the TSEC/eTSEC instances either.
> Partly this is because the existing boards, for reasons I don't understand,
> use virtio NICs.
> 
> Further, the mpc8540 has TSEC instances 1 and 2, while the mpc8544
> has instances 1 and 3.  So I decided to leave NIC setup to the Machine
> rather then add the extra code to parameterize this under the CCSR device.
> 
> > If not, I'm really wondering if the CCSR ought to be a device in its
> > own right, rather than just a container memory region used within the
> > machine.
> 
> I don't think I follow what you mean by "device" in this context?
> The CCSR object is a SysBusDevice in the qom tree ("/machine/e500-ccsr").
> What device-like characteristics could it have?

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  the CCSR definitely *is* a device in the
current scheme, but I'm wondering if that was a good idea.


-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson