Am 19.01.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Artyom Tarasenko: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 19/01/2015 12:35, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >>> Similar to m48t59_init(), add a mem_base value so that NVRAM can be mapped >>> via >>> MMIO rather than ioport if required. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> >>> --- >> >> Is it really ISA if it's MMIO? In other words, why can't this be a >> sysbus device? > > On physical machines it's EBus, which is pretty much like 8-bit ISA. > So, I think modelling it as ISA is closer to to the reality. > But out of curiosity, would it be possible to have a sysbus device > somewhere in a middle of PCI space? [...]
Why would you want to use a SysBusDevice in the first place? I previously discussed with Mark that it should be an EBusDevice, not an ISADevice or SysBusDevice. IndustryPack is an example of a custom bus that sits behind a PCI bridge and doesn't need a global variable. Also, wasn't Hervé's(?) plan to get rid of mem_base completely by always passing a pointer to ISADevice/ISABus around? It should only be needed when somewhere NULL is being passed, no? Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
