On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:15:36PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> >>> +static qemu_irq spapr_qirq_dual(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return spapr_irq_current(spapr)->qirq(spapr, irq);
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> This still makes me really nervous - I'd really prefer to have qirqs
> >> independent of the backend, rather than relying on *every* irq using
> >> device never looking up qirqs in advance.
> >
> > I will take a look. This is a large rework I won't have time to address
> > this year. I have removed the dual machine from v9.
> >
> > You would move the qirq array at the machine level ?
>
> I took a look today and did a few changes :
>
> - move the qirq array at the machine level
> - introduced a 'set_irq' method to sPAPR IRQ
> - adapted the 'qirq' method of sPAPR IRQ. We still need to perform some
> checks and to handle the IRQ number offset.
>
> It falls well in place, a part for the ICS source of the PnvPSI model
> which does not have any qirq anymore. For PSI, I am thinking of moving
> the qirq array under PnvPSI model, like I did for the machine.
>
> Would that be ok ?
That sounds reasonable. I'd been thinking of having a qirq array at
the machine level which dispatched to other qirq arrays at the ICS or
XiveSource levels, but if you don't need that, that's ok too.
>
> I think there are a couple more possible cleanups on the different ICS
> models to do if these changes are acceptable.
>
> C.
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
