On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:52:02PM +0100, Bernhard Beschow wrote: > Am 22. Februar 2023 11:03:38 UTC schrieb "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" > <phi...@linaro.org>: > >On 13/2/23 17:19, Bernhard Beschow wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Beschow <shen...@gmail.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> hw/i386/pc_q35.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c > >> index 66cd718b70..dee2b38474 100644 > >> --- a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c > >> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c > >> @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ static void pc_q35_init(MachineState *machine) > >> pc_memory_init(pcms, get_system_memory(), rom_memory, &ram_memory, > >> pci_hole64_size); > >> - object_property_add_child(qdev_get_machine(), "q35", > >> OBJECT(q35_host)); > >> + object_property_add_child(OBJECT(machine), "q35", OBJECT(q35_host)); > >> object_property_set_link(OBJECT(q35_host), MCH_HOST_PROP_RAM_MEM, > >> OBJECT(ram_memory), NULL); > >> object_property_set_link(OBJECT(q35_host), MCH_HOST_PROP_PCI_MEM, > > > >Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> > > > >Long term we should duplicate/extract Q35MachineState from > >PCMachineState and add a Q35PCIHost field, then use object_initialize_child; > >removing this object_property_add_child() > >call. > > The Q35 and PC machines duplicate a lot of code indeed. So I was > thinking more along the lines of consolidating with pc_piix ;)
The reason is that we are trying to limit changes to pc_piix and focus development on Q35. > The > idea would be to get a peek preview into a configuration-driven future > where the PCI host bridges (Q35 or I440FX) are dynamically > instantiated based on configuration data. They would also be > configured through their QOM interfaces only. > > I've submitted a series where the Q35 host bridge gets a QOM cleanup > [1] and I've got a series locally resolving i440fx_init(). Both series > combined bring these two device models close together regarding their > QOM interface. I've not submitted the i440fx series yet since it is > blocked by this series. > > One further step for pc_q35 and pc_piix consolidation would be to > factor ICH9 PCI devices (not functions!) into self-contained models, > like is underway with PIIX(3). I've started with ICH9 cleanup already > [2] and I'm waiting for the PIIX consolidation to land in order to be > able to make more progress here. > > Note that pc_q35 and pc_piix consolidation is just an idea for now > which could also turn out to be a bad one. If the two machines just > ended up sharing more code that could IMO be considered a success as > well. > > Best regards, > Bernhard > > [1] https://patchew.org/QEMU/20230214131441.101760-1-shen...@gmail.com/ > [2] https://patchew.org/QEMU/20230213173033.98762-1-shen...@gmail.com/
