On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:36:46AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/06/2013 06:21, Peter Crosthwaite ha scritto: > > diff --git a/hw/timer/xilinx_timer.c b/hw/timer/xilinx_timer.c > > index 0c39cff..ae09170 100644 > > --- a/hw/timer/xilinx_timer.c > > +++ b/hw/timer/xilinx_timer.c > > @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ static int xilinx_timer_init(SysBusDevice *dev) > > ptimer_set_freq(xt->ptimer, t->freq_hz); > > } > > > > - memory_region_init_io(&t->mmio, &timer_ops, t, "xlnx.xps-timer", > > + memory_region_init_io(&t->mmio, &timer_ops, t, TYPE_XILINX_TIMER, > > R_MAX * 4 * num_timers(t)); > > sysbus_init_mmio(dev, &t->mmio); > > return 0; > > @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void xilinx_timer_class_init(ObjectClass > > Isn't this a false positive?
Yes. I see patches doing QOM'ify don't update things like this.
