Hi
> On Nov 25, 2019, at 4:43 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/25/19 4:36 PM, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
>> When QOM APIs were added to ich9 in 6f1426ab, the getter for sci_int was
>> written using uint32_t. However, the object property is uint8_t. This
>> fixes the getter for correctness.
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <fel...@nutanix.com>
>> ---
>> hw/isa/lpc_ich9.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/hw/isa/lpc_ich9.c b/hw/isa/lpc_ich9.c
>> index 5555ce3342..240979885d 100644
>> --- a/hw/isa/lpc_ich9.c
>> +++ b/hw/isa/lpc_ich9.c
>> @@ -631,9 +631,9 @@ static void ich9_lpc_get_sci_int(Object *obj, Visitor
>> *v, const char *name,
>> void *opaque, Error **errp)
>> {
>> ICH9LPCState *lpc = ICH9_LPC_DEVICE(obj);
>> - uint32_t value = lpc->sci_gsi;
>> + uint8_t value = lpc->sci_gsi;
>> - visit_type_uint32(v, name, &value, errp);
>> + visit_type_uint8(v, name, &value, errp);
>
> Maybe directly as:
>
> visit_type_uint8(v, name, &lpc->sci_gsi, errp);
>
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll improve it on a v2 which I'm sending
out anyway for other reasons.
For my own sake: why is the field called "sci_gsi", but
ACPI_PM_PROP_SCI_INT (and the getter) are called "sci_int"?
Thanks,
F.
> With/without stack variable:
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
>
>> }
>> static void ich9_lpc_add_properties(ICH9LPCState *lpc)
>> @@ -641,7 +641,7 @@ static void ich9_lpc_add_properties(ICH9LPCState *lpc)
>> static const uint8_t acpi_enable_cmd = ICH9_APM_ACPI_ENABLE;
>> static const uint8_t acpi_disable_cmd = ICH9_APM_ACPI_DISABLE;
>> - object_property_add(OBJECT(lpc), ACPI_PM_PROP_SCI_INT, "uint32",
>> + object_property_add(OBJECT(lpc), ACPI_PM_PROP_SCI_INT, "uint8",
>> ich9_lpc_get_sci_int,
>> NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>> object_property_add_uint8_ptr(OBJECT(lpc), ACPI_PM_PROP_ACPI_ENABLE_CMD,
>
