Re: [PULL 25/33] tests/acceptance: Add a test for the N800 and N810 arm machines

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 13:37, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> > Hmm, maybe, maybe not. The original design idea here was that
> > the boot loader code took a structure defining only the things
> > that the bootloader needed to know. It doesn't really need to
> > know about all the stuff that's in MachineState, which is
> > the state structure for the machine.
>
> Yep It doesn't need all data the MachineState contains, but then we end up
> with this kind of bugs which could be avoided if duplication were not there.
> And some of the fields in  MachineState are pure bootloader data.

I notice we already have arm_load_kernel() take a MachineState*
and fill in the info->kernel_filename etc from the MachineState
fields. I suppose we could do the same for a few more fields.
I'm not very fond of the way that function takes the MachineState*,
though. I think it would be nicer if the MachineState had a
separate sub-struct which was "this is the stuff that's just
data for the bootloader" and passed that, rather than throwing
the entire state struct pointer around.

thanks
-- PMM