From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g8BZL-0000Vi-Ve for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:54:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g8BZL-0005CE-80 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:54:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 18:53:52 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20181004215352.GW5738@habkost.net> References: <20181001115704.701-1-luc.michel@greensocs.com> <20181001115704.701-16-luc.michel@greensocs.com> <35ffbd68-f783-b6f4-18a2-dd995819c046@redhat.com> <33c3ea72-652a-53b2-4865-830f3d7f2c3a@greensocs.com> <3d459f14-b701-02b6-d231-fc48c509640f@redhat.com> <20181004195225.GV5738@habkost.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 15/15] arm/xlnx-zynqmp: put APUs and RPUs in separate GDB groups List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Luc Michel , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , Thomas Huth , Paolo Bonzini , QEMU Developers , Alistair Francis , Mark Burton , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Sai Pavan Boddu , Edgar Iglesias , qemu-arm On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:01:09PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 October 2018 at 20:52, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > Changing the object hierarchy based on GDB groups doesn't seem > > right, but I don't think it would be a big deal if we have the > > board code explicitly telling the GDB code how to group the CPUs. > > > > If you really want to do it implicitly, would it work if you > > simply group the CPUs based on object_get_canonical_path()? > > > > If a more explicit GDB grouping API is acceptable, what about > > just adding a INTERFACE_GDB_GROUP interface name to (existing) > > container objects that we expect to become GDB groups? > > > > I'm not sure which way is better. I'm a bit worried that making > > things too implicit could easily break (e.g. if somebody changes > > the CPU QOM hierarchy in the future for unrelated reasons). > > I don't want things implicit. I just don't want the explicitness > to be "this is all about GDB", because it isn't. I want us > to explicitly say "these 4 CPUs are in one cluster" (or > whatever term we use), because that affects more than merely GDB. We already have a way to say "these 4 CPUs are in one cluster", don't we? That's the QOM hierarchy. My question is if "the CPUs are in one cluster" should implicitly mean "the CPUs are in one GDB group". -- Eduardo