On 27/04/2015 14:20, Eric Auger wrote: > On 04/27/2015 12:39 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 27/04/2015 10:26, Eric Auger wrote: >>>>> One of my long term goals is to try and get rid of sysbus IRQ >>>>> abstraction completely in favor of just qdev gpios. This means >>>>> features that apply to GPIOs automatically apply to IRQs and vice >>>>> versa. Can your notifier hook be pushed up to the qdev GPIO level to >>>>> make it more globally usable and avoid a new feature to sysbus IRQs? >>> Yes sure, I am going to put the notifier in DeviceClass then. >> >> I've thought too about this, and I'm not sure about it. >> >> It would mean you have to pass the gpio name (e.g. >> SYSBUS_DEVICE_GPIO_IRQ) to the hook, and in the case of sysbus IRQs this >> would leak the SYSBUS_DEVICE_GPIO_IRQ abstraction to the implementors of >> the hook. > Hi Paolo, > > Currently my notifier has the following proto: > void (*connect_gpio_out_notifier)(DeviceState *dev, qemu_irq irq); > > It is sufficient for my need. > > is it really mandated to pass other qdev_connect_gpio_out_named args, > ie. name & n? It's an ugly situation. If you look at qdev_connect_gpio_out_named, it is really a thin wrapper around object_property_set_link. Just like Peter wasn't too happy with changing sysbus_connect_irq, the same objection would apply here. Callers of object_property_set_link should call the notifiers, not just those that use qdev_connect_gpio_out_named. This is why I originally asked you to look into using the check callback instead. This is why I think it's better to keep the sysbus patch. Paolo _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
