From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37422)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1R3wCw-0002Mz-BH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:37:23 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1R3wCv-0000dO-0m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:37:22 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29973)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1R3wCu-0000dJ-N0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:37:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4E71107C.7040806@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:37:16 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1315832873-18976-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<4E710F71.5000506@twiddle.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E710F71.5000506@twiddle.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] mips_malta: move i8259 initialization
 after piix4 initialization
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 09/14/2011 11:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 06:07 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  +static void malta_isa_irq_handler(void *opaque, int n, int level)
> >  +{
> >  +    MaltaISAState *s = opaque;
> >  +
> >  +    if (s->i8259) {
> >  +        qemu_set_irq(s->i8259[n], level);
> >  +    }
> >  +}
>
> Is there any point in the IF?  I realize that there's an ordering
> problem that requires the use of the memory indirection in order
> to be able to provide *some* opaque value at the proper time, but
> AFAICT the ->i8259 value will *always* be non-null at the point
> this function is called.  Am I wrong here?

The pci bridge may toggle the irq line as part of its initialization.

> Otherwise the approach looks correct.

Yeah, but it would have been even more correct to make i8259 not an isa 
device.  Something for later on.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.