On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 17:35:51 +0100 Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Two good reasons to use the base device as a child of the > AP BUS: > - We can easily find the device without traversing the qtree. > - In case we have different APdevice instantiation, VFIO with > interception or emulation, we will need the APDevice as > a parent device. > > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> > --- > hw/s390x/ap-device.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > hw/vfio/ap.c | 16 ++++++---------- > include/hw/s390x/ap-device.h | 2 ++ > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/s390x/ap-device.c b/hw/s390x/ap-device.c > index f5ac8db..554d5aa 100644 > --- a/hw/s390x/ap-device.c > +++ b/hw/s390x/ap-device.c > @@ -11,13 +11,35 @@ > #include "qemu/module.h" > #include "qapi/error.h" > #include "hw/qdev.h" > +#include "hw/s390x/ap-bridge.h" > #include "hw/s390x/ap-device.h" > > +APDevice *s390_get_ap(void) > +{ > + static DeviceState *apb; > + BusState *bus; > + BusChild *child; > + static APDevice *ap; > + > + if (ap) { > + return ap; > + } > + > + apb = s390_get_ap_bridge(); > + /* We have only a single child on the BUS */ So, there'll never a mixed environment? Or would that have a 'hybrid' ap device? > + bus = qdev_get_child_bus(apb, TYPE_AP_BUS); > + child = QTAILQ_FIRST(&bus->children); > + assert(child != NULL); > + ap = DO_UPCAST(APDevice, parent_obj, child->child); > + return ap; > +} > + > static void ap_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data) > { > DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_CLASS(klass); > > dc->desc = "AP device class"; > + dc->bus_type = TYPE_AP_BUS; > dc->hotpluggable = false; > } > > diff --git a/hw/vfio/ap.c b/hw/vfio/ap.c > index 65de952..94e5a1a 100644 > --- a/hw/vfio/ap.c > +++ b/hw/vfio/ap.c > @@ -35,9 +35,6 @@ typedef struct VFIOAPDevice { > VFIODevice vdev; > } VFIOAPDevice; > > -#define VFIO_AP_DEVICE(obj) \ > - OBJECT_CHECK(VFIOAPDevice, (obj), VFIO_AP_DEVICE_TYPE) Hm? > - > static void vfio_ap_compute_needs_reset(VFIODevice *vdev) > { > vdev->needs_reset = false;