On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 13:31, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: > > As explained in commit aff39be0ed97: > > Both functions, object_initialize() and object_property_add_child() > increase the reference counter of the new object, so one of the > references has to be dropped afterwards to get the reference > counting right. Otherwise the child object will not be properly > cleaned up when the parent gets destroyed. > Thus let's use now object_initialize_child() instead to get the > reference counting here right. > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > --- > hw/arm/exynos4_boards.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/arm/exynos4_boards.c b/hw/arm/exynos4_boards.c > index ac0b0dc2a9..5dd53d2a23 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/exynos4_boards.c > +++ b/hw/arm/exynos4_boards.c > @@ -129,8 +129,8 @@ exynos4_boards_init_common(MachineState *machine, > exynos4_boards_init_ram(s, get_system_memory(), > exynos4_board_ram_size[board_type]); > > - object_initialize(&s->soc, sizeof(s->soc), TYPE_EXYNOS4210_SOC); > - qdev_set_parent_bus(DEVICE(&s->soc), sysbus_get_default()); > + sysbus_init_child_obj(OBJECT(machine), "soc", > + &s->soc, sizeof(s->soc), TYPE_EXYNOS4210_SOC); > object_property_set_bool(OBJECT(&s->soc), true, "realized", > &error_fatal);
I suspect the code change here is correct but it doesn't seem to match the commit message -- the old code is not calling object_property_add_child() at all, and the new code does not call object_initialize_child()... thanks -- PMM
