Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Type-safe ioport callbacks

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

  On 10/26/2010 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Sorry, I don't follow your meaning.
>>
>> When I said "size is implied" I meant that the IOPort object has a 
>> separate function pointer for sizes 1, 2, and 4, so it 
>> ioport_register() doesn't need a size parameter.  But I don't see how 
>> that relates to your comment.
>
>
> Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to combine "this is how to dispatch 
> I/O" with "this is a region of I/O address space".

Oh, so Blue meant the size of the region in ports, not the size of the 
individual ports.  I think that putting the range length (but not base 
address) in the IOPort structure may make sense.

>
> I think an IORegion should contain an IOPort structure though.  I 
> think the name needs rethinking.
>
> Maybe:
>
> struct PortIOHandler;
> struct MemoryIOHandler;

Why two types?  I think some devices use PIO on a PC and MMIO on other 
architectures.  Sharing the type would allow sharing code.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function