On 11/24/18 2:19 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 18:16, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
I think this is good enough for now (as long as there's a comment
like Peter suggested). Allowing parent_realize to be NULL would
be inconvenient to all code that uses parent_realize today.
It w
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:10:40AM +0800, maozy wrote:
> Hi, Eduardo
>
> On 11/20/18 7:31 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:08:20PM +0800, Mao Zhongyi wrote:
> > > Currently, all sysbus devices have been converted to realize(),
> > > so remove this path.
> > >
> > > Cc: eh
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 18:16, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> I think this is good enough for now (as long as there's a comment
> like Peter suggested). Allowing parent_realize to be NULL would
> be inconvenient to all code that uses parent_realize today.
>
> Personally, I would love to get rid of paren
On 11/23/18 5:02 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 23 November 2018 at 03:10, maozy wrote:
In order to void the subclasses whose parent_realize field is
set to NULL, the k->realize function must be retained even
though it doesn't do anything practical. Just like this:
-/* TODO remove once all sy
On 23 November 2018 at 03:10, maozy wrote:
> In order to void the subclasses whose parent_realize field is
> set to NULL, the k->realize function must be retained even
> though it doesn't do anything practical. Just like this:
>
>
> -/* TODO remove once all sysbus devices have been converted to re
Hi, Eduardo
On 11/20/18 7:31 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:08:20PM +0800, Mao Zhongyi wrote:
Currently, all sysbus devices have been converted to realize(),
so remove this path.
Cc: ehabk...@redhat.com
Cc: th...@redhat.com
Cc: pbonz...@redhat.com
Cc: arm...@redhat.com
C
