Am 25.06.2015 um 19:00 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > On 25/06/2015 04:17, Zhu Guihua wrote: >> Add a wrapper to specify reset order when registering reset handler, >> instead of non-obvious initiazation code ordering. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhu Guihua <zhugh.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > I'm sorry, this is not really acceptable. The initialization code > ordering is good because it should be okay to run reset handlers in the > same order as code is run. If there are dependencies between reset > handlers, a random integer is not a maintainable way to maintain them. > > Instead, you should have a single reset handler that calls the reset > handlers in the right order; for example a qdev bus such as icc_bus > always resets children before parents. > > Are you sure that you want to remove the icc_bus?... What are you > gaining exactly by doing so?
>From my view we would be gaining by making the APIC an integral part (child<>) of the CPU in a follow-up step (there's a TODO to make things link<>s). But either way the CPU's existing reset handler should be able to handle CPU/APIC interdependencies just fine, somehow. Which is what Eduardo said on v6 and v7. (Another alternative he raised was a machine init notifier, but I see no code for that after its mention on v7?) Cheers, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
