From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59965)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1UHedY-0006ux-Gk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:18:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1UHedT-0003O5-GE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:18:20 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]:61176)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1UHedT-0003Nm-8P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:18:15 -0400
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fr10so6488199lab.12
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51475A00.8070304@redhat.com>
References: <1363628125-5310-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA8yVrVSBLer45F_2kwmxHeKEBnO3ux9foU80YgAWd3f9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5147572E.8040501@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA9PYeXnpr1Lykurgr64A1EL+zNod7us-2RZYCOBTxjGYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51475A00.8070304@redhat.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:17:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA_Uo8Puzx3DcyjeZzqpnXV9PU1Qn3_E4REOou6pTiJaEw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/35] hw/ reorganization, part 2
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>

On 18 March 2013 18:16, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 18/03/2013 19:11, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > So what is the better alternative?  A new hw/container/?
>>
>> Maybe. Whatever it is, it should be a classification by kind
>> of device, so we can consistently sort by kind of device
>> and not part by kind of device and part by target architecture.
>>
>> Personally I have no issues with the existing 'all in hw/'
>> arrangement; I just want you to come up with a consistent
>> structure if you're going to try to change it.
>
> Shouldn't these containers also host the CPU device(s), rather than the
> boards?  And create them according to the num-cpu property?  If so, they
> would have to go in hw/arm.

Yes, ideally they should have the CPU devices in them too.
Remind me why devices which instantiate the CPU device go
in hw/arm ?

-- PMM