From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38565) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VWTsi-0007cJ-JV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:23:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VWTsd-0002TX-NA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:23:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23504) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VWTsd-0002TJ-Fp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:23:27 -0400 Message-ID: <525EBD6F.3060609@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:23:11 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1381416174-5110-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1381416174-5110-9-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <87wqlehfg9.fsf_-_@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <525D3B0E.9040304@redhat.com> <87wqldsfuu.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <525E7347.2050202@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should the i8259 devices remain no-user? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: BALATON Zoltan Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , Markus Armbruster , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 16/10/2013 18:21, BALATON Zoltan ha scritto: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 16/10/2013 11:51, Markus Armbruster ha scritto: >>> Let me try to elaborate, to make sure I understand. >>> >>> Unlike ordinary ISA devices, the i8259 devices need additional wiring, >>> done by code. >>> >>> For instance, board code like pc_q35_init(), pc_piix.c's pc_init1(), >>> mips_malta_init(), ... wire up their IRQ input lines. The slave's IRQ >>> output line is wired to the master's IRQ2 in hw/intc/i8259.c for >>> isa-i8259, and the kernel for kvm-i8259. The master's IRQ output line >>> is wired up by board code (it's complicated). >>> >>> Correct? If yes, I can turn it into a suitable comment. >> >> The wiring of the slave to the master is hardcoded into i8259 code. > > A bit off topic but this reminded me of these patches: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/206753/ > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/208252/ > > which never got merged. Is there a chance that these fixes get merged > sometimes or is there an explanation why it won't be fixed? As far as I > remember the patches were reviewed and multiple versions were proposed > but at the end no decision was reached on which one to merge and it was > just left uncorrected. Right, thank you very much. ISTR the unanswered question was what to do about migration, but I need to reread all the threads. Paolo