On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:56:36AM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009 20:42:07 Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Hi Sheng,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:29:27PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > This framework can be easily extended to support device capability, like
> > > MSI/MSI-x.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > qemu/hw/pci.c | 85
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ qemu/hw/pci.h |
> > > 30 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >
> > > @@ -205,6 +215,15 @@ struct PCIDevice {
> > >
> > > /* Current IRQ levels. Used internally by the generic PCI code. */
> > > int irq_state[4];
> > > +
> > > + /* Device capability configuration space */
> > > + struct {
> > > + int supported;
> > > + uint8_t config[PCI_CAPABILITY_CONFIG_MAX_LENGTH];
> > > + unsigned int start, length;
> > > + PCICapConfigReadFunc *config_read;
> > > + PCICapConfigWriteFunc *config_write;
> > > + } cap;
> > > };
> >
> > Why do you have a copy of the capabilities config space? Why not just
> > access PCIDevice->config directly?
>
> I am not sure upstream would accept which. Separate the logic seems more clear
> and easy to accept to me...
You have to maintain two copies of the same data. Whats the point? The
logic can be separate with a unified config space, no?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
