[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible? |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:02:14 +0000 |
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 15:21, Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
> If there is no blocker on _any_ change to the hierarchy I will put it in the
> RFC series,
> so we can discuss the merits there and investigate alternatives,
> if there is no immediate blocker to any change in the object hierarchy.
Well, the blocker is lack of justification. The right place for
"common code between kvm and tcg" is in the base class TYPE_ARM_CPU.
thanks
-- PMM
- arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Peter Maydell, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?,
Peter Maydell <=
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Paolo Bonzini, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Eduardo Habkost, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Peter Maydell, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Andrew Jones, 2021/03/11
- arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Andrew Jones, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Andrew Jones, 2021/03/18