On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:21:43PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-04-27 17:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:39:53PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2011-04-27 16:30, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>>> --- a/hw/pci.c > >>>>>> +++ b/hw/pci.c > >>>>>> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ > >>>>>> #include "device-assignment.h" > >>>>>> #include "qemu-objects.h" > >>>>>> #include "range.h" > >>>>>> +#include "msi.h" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> //#define DEBUG_PCI > >>>>>> #ifdef DEBUG_PCI > >>>>>> @@ -342,6 +343,7 @@ static int get_pci_config_device(QEMUFile *f, void *pv, size_t size) > >>>>>> memcpy(s->config, config, size); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> pci_update_mappings(s); > >>>>>> + msi_post_load(s); > >>>>> > >>>>> Pls don't do this: I'm trying to keep just the core in > >>>>> pci.c and all capabilities in separate files. > >>>>> msix has msix_load, msi will just need one too, > >>>>> and let all devices call that. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Preferred alternatives are...? Registering a vmstate for msi? > >>>> > >>>> Jan > >>> > >>> Add msi_load and call that from devices that need it. > >>> Like msix_load does now. > >>> > >> > >> msix_load/save are refactoring candidates IMHO. MSI-X has a real need > >> for storing additional state information, so it should register its own > >> subsection. > > > > That's an implementation detail though, isn't it. > > > >> I don't want to offload this burden to the devices also for > >> MSI. > >> From the devices' POV, why shouldn't msi_init suffice? > >> > >> Jan > > > > One can also claim this about config writes: > > pci_bridge_write_config(d, address, val, len); > > pcie_cap_flr_write_config(d, address, val, len); > > pcie_cap_slot_write_config(d, address, val, len); > > msi_write_config(d, address, val, len); > > pcie_aer_write_config(d, address, val, len); > > which arguably just duplicates the initialization sequence. > > > > What I'm trying to do though is to keep it modular and > > keep module inter-dependencies to a minimum, > > so that pci is the core and msix depends on it > > but not the other way around. > > I still don't see the bigger benefit in saving a single bidirectional > dependency at core level vs. saving additional callbacks at each and > every MSI user. The latter is also a source for bugs. > > Jan Yes but let us be consistent with how e.g. config writes are handled. As I said > > What I think we should do is to add a pci subdirectory, move all > > of the stuff there, move pci.c to pci/core.c and > > add a high level module that depends on them all > > and deals with all the capabilities. Which will solve both issues without need for tradeoffs. > -- > Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 > Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
