On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 08:12:13PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > On 14/07/17 19:56, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > >>> Why do you need the full struct declaration to be exposed in the > >>> header? > >> > >> Different board code wants to hook up "comb_iomem" manually to different > >> address spaces, so they need to access the field directly. This is the > >> ultimate goal of the entire exercise, IIRC. > > Yes, that is correct (and I believe is mentioned in the cover letter, too). > > >>> The memory regions are supposed to be visible as QOM > >>> children to the fw_cfg device, already. > >> > >> I don't understand this. How else can board code work with "comb_iomem" > >> than described above? If there is a way, I agree it would be preferable. > > > > object_resolve_path_component(fw_cfg, "fwcfg[0]") and > > object_resolve_path_component(fw_cfg, "fwcfg.dma[0]") should > > return fw_cfg->comb_iomem and fw_cfg->dma_iomem, respectively. > > > > I don't know why those names were chosen, though. Probably it's > > a good idea to call object_property_add_child() manually with > > more appropriate names inside the fw_cfg code instead of letting > > memory_region_init() pick the child name. > > That's interesting. I did a grep of the codebase for > object_resolve_path_component and struggled to find an instance where it > was being used to provide access to a MemoryRegion. Even if it's an > available feature, it's certainly not one that is widely known about. > > In terms of the patch, is the v9 revision suitable for commit or does > this constitute a NACK?
It's not a NACK. Using QOM properties instead of direct struct access may be nice (I'm not 100% sure, either), but not required. -- Eduardo
