> On Jun 23, 2022, at 5:56 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:04, Peter Delevoryas <pdel@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Delevoryas <pdel@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> hw/arm/aspeed_ast10x0.c | 10 ++++------
>> hw/arm/aspeed_ast2600.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>> hw/arm/aspeed_soc.c | 9 +++++----
>> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/arm/aspeed_ast10x0.c b/hw/arm/aspeed_ast10x0.c
>> index d259d30fc0..4e6688cc68 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm/aspeed_ast10x0.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm/aspeed_ast10x0.c
>> @@ -158,12 +158,10 @@ static void aspeed_soc_ast1030_realize(DeviceState *dev_soc, Error **errp)
>> }
>>
>> /* General I/O memory space to catch all unimplemented device */
>> - create_unimplemented_device("aspeed.sbc",
>> - sc->memmap[ASPEED_DEV_SBC],
>> - 0x40000);
>> - create_unimplemented_device("aspeed.io",
>> - sc->memmap[ASPEED_DEV_IOMEM],
>> - ASPEED_SOC_IOMEM_SIZE);
>> + create_unimplemented_device_in("aspeed.sbc", sc->memmap[ASPEED_DEV_SBC],
>> + 0x40000, s->system_memory);
>> + create_unimplemented_device_in("aspeed.io", sc->memmap[ASPEED_DEV_IOMEM],
>> + ASPEED_SOC_IOMEM_SIZE, s->system_memory);
>
> This is SoC code, so it should probably be handling its unimplemented
> devices by creating and mapping TYPE_UNIMPLEMENTED_DEVICE child
> objects directly, the same way it handles all its other child devices.
Ah, right. I’ll include a patch to create the device as a regular
child object, and after that it will probably make more sense to
remove “create_unimplemented_device_in” too and just do that
memory mapping directly. Especially since I’m going to remove
the “sysbus_mmio_map_overlap_in” function too.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
