From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ILLp3-0000H5-Vo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:34:18 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ILLp3-0000Gr-8v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:34:17 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILLp3-0000Go-4M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:34:17 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1ILLp2-00066q-LG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:34:16 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:34:09 +0100
References: <f43fc5580708150913k631126bche7fde54f55e73643@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580708150913k631126bche7fde54f55e73643@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708151734.10040.paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Extending qemu_irq for reset signals
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to use similar mechanism as qemu_irq as reset signal for
> devices. The difference is that the opaque data and callback are not
> specified at the time of creating the signal at upstream device, but
> when the receiving device is created. This does not fit current
> qemu_irq model.

Either your confused, or not expressing what you want very well. What you 
describe is how qemu_irq works.

The "upstream device" and "receiving device" are the same thing.

The whole point of qemu_irq is to be able to send a single-bit signal without 
having to know or care where it's going. ie. when creating the board/cpu, you 
create the qemu_irq object with appropriate parameters. Then the device 
initiating the reset uses that qemu_irq object.

If the device initiating the reset needs to pass additional information, then 
you're no longer dealing with a single bit of state, so I don't think 
qemu_irq is really appropriate.

Paul