On 13.12.2012, at 01:33, Scott Wood wrote: > On 12/12/2012 06:28:02 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 13.12.2012, at 01:20, Scott Wood wrote: >> > On 12/12/2012 06:04:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> We could call bus->map_irq(...) with an artificially created PCIDevice >> >> struct ;). But that's pretty hacky. >> > >> > If we do anything like that, it should probably be to iterate over the >> > devices that actually exist and add interrupt-map entries only for those. >> Right. Though I'm not sure how pci hotplug slots would look like in that >> model. I don't think we have PCIDevice structs there yet, but we would still >> need to keep interrupt maps ready. > > Note that if we did limit it to only devices that actually exist, we'd be > producing a smaller interrupt-map than would be found on real hardware for > targets like mpc8544ds, if the slots aren't fully populated.
Yeah, I think with the patch as is we're on the safe side. Better be consistent than too smart :). > >> >> So you're indicating you'd like the below patch? >> > >> > I think you pasted a bit more than one patch, but yes. >> Yikes. It's way past midnight after all :). >> You mean I messed up and pasted more than I wanted or that I should split >> the patch? :) > > The former. :-) Ok :). So I'll include the patch in the series without resending the whole set - I don't want to spam the mailing list more than I need to :). Alex
