From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45954) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwCXZ-000719-2N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:26:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwCXX-0007Y6-P6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:26:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48358) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwCXX-0007Y2-I1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:26:39 -0400 Message-ID: <4E54EDFB.1030303@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:26:35 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1314180683-8227-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <1314180683-8227-7-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4E54D673.2020601@redhat.com> <4E54DE0A.7010502@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E54DE0A.7010502@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/24] QEMUMachine: pass address space to machine init function List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 08/24/2011 02:18 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/24/2011 01:53 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> > The purpose here is to allow removal of get_system_memory() from >> > the general code base. >> >> The right way to remove get_system_memory() from the general code base >> is to actually model things correctly, for instance by having machine >> models create a container memory region into which they insert the >> memory regions for all the devices which currently use sysbus_mmio_map >> to map themselves, and then pass the container memory region to the >> "master" end of the bus, ie the CPU. >> > > I think you're right. This also allows eventual removal of system_io > on anything non-x86. > > So a replacement would look like: > > (before) > > -static void pc_init_isa(ram_addr_t ram_size, > +static void pc_init_isa(MemoryRegion *address_space_mem, > + MemoryRegion *address_space_io, > + ram_addr_t ram_size, > const char *boot_device, > const char *kernel_filename, > const char *kernel_cmdline, > @@ -259,15 +265,17 @@ static void pc_init_isa(ram_addr_t ram_size, > { > if (cpu_model == NULL) > cpu_model = "486"; > - pc_init1(get_system_memory(), > - get_system_io(), > + pc_init1(address_space_mem, > + address_space_io, > ram_size, boot_device, > kernel_filename, kernel_cmdline, > initrd_filename, cpu_model, 0, 1); > } > > (after) > @@ -259,15 +265,17 @@ static void pc_init_isa(ram_addr_t ram_size, > { > + MemoryRegion *address_space_mem, *address_space_io; > + > + setup_system_memory(&address_space_mem,&address_space_io); > if (cpu_model == NULL) > cpu_model = "486"; > - pc_init1(get_system_memory(), > - get_system_io(), > + pc_init1(address_space_mem, > + address_space_io, > ram_size, boot_device, > kernel_filename, kernel_cmdline, > initrd_filename, cpu_model, 0, 1); > } > > > Later on, we'd refine the setup_system_memory() calls, for example not > to create the io space on non-x86. > > A possible complication is whether anything currently uses > system_memory before ->init is called. Anyone know? > Okay, it looks like I can just drop the patch and call get_system_memory() in the various _init functions. This avoids the complication. We can tidy up get_system_memory() later. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.