From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mas1v-0000Gv-7l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:08:47 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mas1q-000081-Ot
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:08:46 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41005 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mas1q-00007o-KL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:08:42 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47808)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Mas1p-0006Rm-PY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:08:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4A817B61.2010803@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:08:33 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu_reserve_isa_irq()
References: <4A7ADE70.7060204@sgi.com> <4A806D86.8090208@codemonkey.ws>
	<4A8156D4.2090000@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A8156D4.2090000@sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>

On 08/11/09 13:32, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 08/10/2009 08:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Given the new isa qdev support, maybe it would be better to hook into
>> isa_connect_irq?
>
> Hi Anthony,
>
> In principle that would be good, the problem is just that the most of
> the code still brute force messages with the i8259 array directly,
> including the new ISA code. It really needs to be fixed to reference
> the ISA IRQ number and not the i8259 array directly :-(

How about making isa-bus.c own the i8259 array then?  We could pass it 
to isa_bus_new.  Then switch over to reference isa irqs by number.  That 
allows isa-bus to keep track of the allocations.  Maybe it makes sense 
to kill the sysbus-style isa_{init,connect}_irq split and have a irq bus 
property then.

cheers,
   Gerd