On 04.08.14 03:55, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
To replace the old qemu_irq intercept API (which had users reaching into qdev private state for IRQs).Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> --- hw/core/qdev.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/hw/qdev-core.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) diff --git a/hw/core/qdev.c b/hw/core/qdev.c index e6b2231..4cbf773 100644 --- a/hw/core/qdev.c +++ b/hw/core/qdev.c @@ -412,6 +412,31 @@ void qdev_connect_gpio_out_named(DeviceState *dev, const char *name, int n, g_free(propname); }+/* disconnect a GPIO ouput, returning the disconnected input (if any) */+ +static qemu_irq qdev_disconnect_gpio_out_named(DeviceState *dev, + const char *name, int n) +{ + char *propname = g_strdup_printf("%s[%d]", + name ? name : "unnamed-gpio-out", n); + + qemu_irq ret = (qemu_irq)object_property_get_link(OBJECT(dev), propname, + NULL); + if (ret) { + object_property_set_link(OBJECT(dev), NULL, propname, NULL); + } + g_free(propname); + return ret; +} + +void qdev_intercept_gpio_out(DeviceState *dev, qemu_irq_handler handler, + const char *name, int n) +{ + qemu_irq disconnected = qdev_disconnect_gpio_out_named(dev, name, n); + qemu_irq icpt = qemu_allocate_irq(handler, disconnected, n);
This means that we can't pass in any other opaque to the intercepting handler which sounds suboptimal to me. Can't we pass in a qemu_irq as parameter and a pointer to a field where we can store the disconnected qemu_irq?
Then the caller can allocate its own qemu_irq with all the opaque data it wants and just have the intercept function overwrite a single field in the passed down opaque.
Or you just return the disconnected qemu_irq. Then the caller can do whatever it likes with it, such as set icpt->opaque to it.
Alex
