On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 07:27:52 +0100
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 3/3/23 16:09, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > Very simple implementation to allow testing of corresponding
> > kernel code. Note that for now we track each 64 byte section
> > independently. Whilst a valid implementation choice, it may
> > make sense to fuse entries so as to prove out more complex
> > corners of the kernel code.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.came...@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > v4: No change
> > ---
> > hw/cxl/cxl-mailbox-utils.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
>
>
> > +static CXLRetCode cmd_media_inject_poison(struct cxl_cmd *cmd,
> > + CXLDeviceState *cxl_dstate,
> > + uint16_t *len)
> > +{
> > + CXLType3Dev *ct3d = container_of(cxl_dstate, CXLType3Dev, cxl_dstate);
> >
>
> This makes me wonder why CXLDeviceState isn't QDev based.
Interesting question that I'll look into, but I hope you don't mind if
I separate that question from this series.
Logically it's a one of a couple of different subsets of functionality and
different CXL components have a different mix of those. I'm not sure
that will map to a QDev based approach. I'll need to take more time to look into
this.
>
> (Also, why include/hw/cxl/cxl_device.h is under GPL-2.0-only license?)
Not a clue. Ben, any comment?
