Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 15/15] arm/xlnx-zynqmp: put APUs and RPUs in separate GDB groups

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:01:09PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 October 2018 at 20:52, Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> 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