On 05/01/2012 03:49 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 1 May 2012 13:48, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 05/01/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 1 May 2012 13:42, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > sysbus should just die. > >> > >> Totally agreed. It's not going to go quietly though... > > > > Not if you keep suggesting workarounds when I tell unsuspecting > > developers to qomify their devices. > > When QOM supports (1) exporting gpio signals and (2) > exporting memory regions, then it will be providing the > main things that sysbus provides. (Sysbus today is essentially > "I need a device that exports some memory regions and some > I/O pins".) At that point it will be sensible to say "convert > your sysbus devices to QOM". Until QOM is actually able to > provide the functionality, it's not a workable replacement.
Doesn't property<MemoryRegion> (or however it's phrased) provide the functionality for memory? But I agree. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
