On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:01:13PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Gleb Natapov <g...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:06:51PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov <g...@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Prevent two devices from claiming the same io port.
> >>
> >> Really?
> >>
> >> Your new check for double-claim is in the new isa_init_ioport(), which
> >> is for ISADevice only. Thus, only qdevified ISA devices can opt for
> >> this protection, by calling isa_init_ioport(). It doesn't protect from
> >> devices who don't or can't opt in, such as PCI devices.
> >>
> > I didn't claim different. This obviously works only for ISA qdev
> > devices.
>
> I read "Prevent two devices from claiming the same io port" as such.
>
And have you read subject with that?
> >> Anyway, we already check for double-claim in
> >> register_ioport_{read,write}(). The check has issues --- hw_error() is
> >> wrong there for hot plug. But it's where the check should be, isn't it?
> > You don't like double-claim checking? Forget about it (all 3 lines
> > of code). The real point of the patch is to have ISA resources used
> > by devices to be stored in common place (ISADevice) which allows
> > get_dev_path() to be implemented.
>
> We already track I/O port use, in ioport.c. I don't like that
> duplicated. Even less so if the dupe catches fewer double-claims than
> the original.
Consider it removed although we do keep track of irqs there and this
tracking is also incomplete. Why is it there?
>
> Perhaps your new function should wrap around register_ioport_*() instead
> of supplementing it.
register_ioport_*() is disconnected from qdev in general and from ISADEvice
in particular, so how "wrap around register_ioport_*()" will help me to
have get_dev_path() for ISABus is beyond my understanding.
--
Gleb.
