From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46767) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0UeS-00005M-1U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 07:49:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0UeJ-00071B-0J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 07:49:07 -0400 Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <53AD5A12.1090000@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:48:34 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1401884936-12907-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <53AC0B94.3060400@suse.de> <53AD47B6.5010007@suse.de> <53AD52CE.8040509@suse.de> <53AD5480.8030807@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <53AD5480.8030807@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Platform device support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , Peter Crosthwaite Cc: qemu-ppc Mailing List , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Eric Auger Il 27/06/2014 13:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto: > > I think we can all agree that the sysbus bus is not a bus per se. So > conceptually, what's the difference between a device attached to a > non-bus and a device not attached to a bus at all? And why can't we > convert sysbus to not be a bus anymore? I think there is no difference, and I don't think moving out of sysbus is really a goal that we need to pursue. I agree with Andreas that having a "SoC object" as father of sysbus (instead of "nothing at all") would be slightly better. We could also make TYPE_MACHINE a subclass of TYPE_DEVICE, to have an obvious place for this SoC object. Paolo