On 10/06/17 19:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I'm not sure having this patch split from the previous (2/3) really > helps bisecting, I'd rather squash them altogether. > > Either way: > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> > > On 06/10/2017 10:00 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> To allow future changes to the sun4u PCI topology. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> >> --- >> hw/sparc64/sun4u.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c b/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c >> index 19e64be..bf738f8 100644 >> --- a/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c >> +++ b/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c >> @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static void sun4uv_init(MemoryRegion >> *address_space_mem, >> /* Map NVRAM into I/O (ebus) space */ >> nvram = m48t59_init(NULL, 0, 0, NVRAM_SIZE, 1968, 59); >> s = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(nvram); >> - memory_region_add_subregion(get_system_io(), 0x2000, >> + memory_region_add_subregion(pci_address_space_io(ebus), 0x2000, >> sysbus_mmio_get_region(s, 0)); >> >> initrd_size = 0; >>
Yes I could probably do that (unless Artyom objects). I agree there isn't that much in to the patch, and until the PCI topology changes it's effectively a no-op. ATB, Mark.
