|
From: | Mark Cave-Ayland |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH 07/12] hw/acpi/piix4: introduce piix4_pm_init() instance init function |
Date: | Mon, 30 May 2022 21:24:51 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0 |
On 29/05/2022 20:06, Bernhard Beschow wrote:
Am 28. Mai 2022 09:19:29 UTC schrieb Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>:Use the new piix4_pm_init() instance init function to initialise 2 separate qdev gpios for the SCI and SMI IRQs. Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk> --- hw/acpi/piix4.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/hw/acpi/piix4.c b/hw/acpi/piix4.c index d897d2dee6..454fa34df1 100644 --- a/hw/acpi/piix4.c +++ b/hw/acpi/piix4.c @@ -497,6 +497,14 @@ static void piix4_pm_realize(PCIDevice *dev, Error **errp) piix4_pm_add_properties(s); } +static void piix4_pm_init(Object *obj) +{ + PIIX4PMState *s = PIIX4_PM(obj); + + qdev_init_gpio_out(DEVICE(obj), &s->irq, 1); + qdev_init_gpio_out_named(DEVICE(obj), &s->smi_irq, "smi-irq", 1); +}The two IRQs still get connected internally. Doesn't this create the risk of double connections until patches 8 and 9 are applied?
No, that should be fine. Here the address of the IRQ is being made available as a qdev gpio for use by qdev_connect_gpio_out(). Since that isn't being used yet, and the 2 IRQs are still being set afterwards in piix4_pm_initfn(), everything should still work just as before.
+ PIIX4PMState *piix4_pm_initfn(PCIBus *bus, int devfn, uint32_t smb_io_base, qemu_irq sci_irq, qemu_irq smi_irq, int smm_enabled) @@ -663,6 +671,7 @@ static void piix4_pm_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data) static const TypeInfo piix4_pm_info = { .name = TYPE_PIIX4_PM, .parent = TYPE_PCI_DEVICE, + .instance_init = piix4_pm_init, .instance_size = sizeof(PIIX4PMState), .class_init = piix4_pm_class_init, .interfaces = (InterfaceInfo[]) {
ATB, Mark.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |