From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46059)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1R4Ius-0002fw-SA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:52:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1R4Iur-0002RE-9H
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:52:14 -0400
Received: from mail-gw0-f53.google.com ([74.125.83.53]:61566)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1R4Iur-0002R9-23
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:52:13 -0400
Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so3128425gwj.12
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E726579.7070902@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:52:09 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E70EC90.8000904@us.ibm.com>
	<4E719F7C.10700@redhat.com>	<4E71FD19.6050606@codemonkey.ws>
	<4E725EC9.6060506@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E725EC9.6060506@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>

On 09/15/2011 03:23 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 04:26 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> I think this model is the closest to what we have today and is the most
>> obvious. For something like ne2k, I would expect:
>>
>> class NE2000 : public Device
>> {
>> // ne2k public functions
>> };
>>
>> class PCI_NE2000 : public PciDevice
>> {
>> // implement PCI functions by calling ne2k public functions
>> NE2000 ne2k;
>> };
>>
>> class ISA_NE2000 : public IsaDevice
>> {
>> // implement ISA functions by calling ne2k public functions
>> NE2000 ne2k;
>> };
>
> Also, NE2000 methods have to call ISA_NE2000 and PCI_NE2000 methods, yes?

I don't think so.  The NE2k would export an IRQ and the ISA_NE2K and PCI_NE2k 
would have to route that IRQ.  But I think that's the extent of the 
communication in that direction.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

  That's
> going to be more difficult. Not impossible, just hard. It's probably going to
> involve device specific code that models what type of glue was used for that
> particular device/bus combo.
>