These topics are interesting. I have two questions.
1. Can we join it on online? If so, could you share the meeting link before the meeting.
2. If it is only offline, could you share the meeting content to the public?
Thanks,
Zhiwei
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
发送时间：2022年9月1日(星期四) 01:08
收件人：qemu-devel@nongnu.org <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
抄 送：Mark Burton <mburton@qti.qualcomm.com>; Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>; Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>; Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>; Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>; Song Gao <gaosong@loongson.cn>; Xiaojuan Yang <yangxiaojuan@loongson.cn>; "Cédric Le Goater" <clg@kaod.org>; Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>; Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>; Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>; David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>; Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>; Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>; Luc Michel <luc@lmichel.fr>; Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com>; Alessandro Di Federico <ale@rev.ng>
主 题：Re: Any interest in a QEMU emulation BoF at KVM Forum?
Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> writes:
qemu-devel keeps bouncing the message so replying with a cut down CC list.
> Hi,
>
> Given our slowly growing range of TCG emulations and the evident
> interest in keeping up with modern processor architectures is it worth
> having an emulation focused BoF at the up-coming KVM Forum?
>
> Some potential topics for discussion I could think of might include:
>
> * Progress towards heterogeneous vCPU emulation
>
> We've been making slow progress in removing assumptions from the
> various front-ends about their global nature and adding accel:TCG
> abstractions and support for the translator loop. We can already have
> CPUs from the same architecture family in a model. What else do we need
> to do so we can have those funky ARM+RiscV+Tricore heterogeneous
> models? Is it library or something else?
>
> * External Device Models
>
> I know this is a contentious topic given the potential for GPL
> end-runs. However there are also good arguments for enabling the
> testing of open source designs without having forcing the
> implementation of a separate C model to test software. For example if
> we hypothetically modelled a Pi Pico would it make sense to model the
> PIO in C if we could just compile the Verilog for it into a SystemC
> model? Would a plethora of closed device models be the inevitable
> consequence of such an approach? Would it matter if we just
> concentrated on supporting useful open source solutions?
>
> * Dynamic Machine Models
>
> While we try and avoid modelling bespoke virtual HW in QEMU
> (virt/goldfish not withstanding ;-) there is obviously a desire in the
> EDA space to allow such experimentation. Is this something we can
> provide so aspiring HW engineers can experiment with system
> architectures without having to form QEMU and learn QOM. There have
> been suggestions about consuming device trees or maybe translating to
> QMP calls and adding support for wiring devices together. Given the
> number of forks that exist is this something that could be better
> supported upstream without degenerating into messy hacks?
>
> * A sense of time
>
> Currently we have the fairly limited support for -icount in QEMU. At
> the same time we have no desire to start expanding frontends with
> the details cost models required for a more realistic sense of time to
> be presented. One suggestion is to expand the TCG plugin interface to
> allow for the plugin to control time allowing as much or little logic
> to be pushed there as we like and freeing up frontends from ever having
> to consider it.
>
> Are any of these topics of interest? Are there any other emulation
> topics people would like to discuss?
--
Alex Bennée