Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] apic: QOM'ify apic & icc_bus

[赵小强 <zxq_yx_007@163.com>]

于 11/12/2013 10:52 PM, Andreas Färber 写道:
> Resending yesterday's message since it hasn't arrived on qemu-devel...
>
> Am 11.11.2013 04:58, schrieb 赵小强:
>> 于 11/05/2013 04:51 PM, 赵小强 写道:
>>> 于 2013年11月05日 16:25, Chen Fan 写道:
>>>> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:55 +0800, xiaoqiang zhao wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/cpu/icc_bus.h b/include/hw/cpu/icc_bus.h
>>>>> index b550070..b32a549 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/hw/cpu/icc_bus.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/hw/cpu/icc_bus.h
>>>>> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ typedef struct ICCDeviceClass {
>>>>>        DeviceClass parent_class;
>>>>>        /*< public >*/
>>>>>    -    int (*init)(ICCDevice *dev); /* TODO replace with QOM realize */
>>>>> +    /* QOM realize */
>>>>> +    DeviceRealize realize;
>>>> Maybe adding 'realize' in ICCDeviceClass is redundant, because parent
>>>> class has included 'realize' field.
>>>>
>>>>>    } ICCDeviceClass;
>>>>>      #define TYPE_ICC_DEVICE "icc-device"
>>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/i386/apic_internal.h
>>>>> b/include/hw/i386/apic_internal.h
>>>>> index 1b0a7fb..bd3a5fc 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/hw/i386/apic_internal.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/hw/i386/apic_internal.h
>>>>> @@ -79,8 +79,9 @@ typedef struct APICCommonState APICCommonState;
>>>>>    typedef struct APICCommonClass
>>>>>    {
>>>>>        ICCDeviceClass parent_class;
>>>>> -
>>>>> -    void (*init)(APICCommonState *s);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* QOM realize */
>>>>> +    DeviceRealize realize;
>>>> as above.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Chen
>>>>>        void (*set_base)(APICCommonState *s, uint64_t val);
>>>>>        void (*set_tpr)(APICCommonState *s, uint8_t val);
>>>>>        uint8_t (*get_tpr)(APICCommonState *s);
>>> Thanks for your review!!
>> Hi, Chen Fan:
>>
>> In my understanding, If we use only one 'realize'(which in
>> 'DeviceClass'), I think all the initialization work must be done in the
>> leaf child.  if we add 'redundant' realize to each parent, then we can
>> call the initialization chain from DeviceClass down to leaf child's
>> parent, with each parent complete a bit further(of cause, a parent can
>> do nothing and pass to it's child directly).
>>
>> What do you think?
> Your analysis is correct. v2 is like I requested you to do it and v3
> still does iirc, so let's stick with that for "consistency". Bad word in
> this context, I know. ;)
>
> If you have some time, it would be nice if you could check whether these
> devices (the non-KVM versions at least) are covered by make check. For
> ICC bus I am certain that it is. In particular I'm wondering if we need
> certain -cpu arguments to enable the *APIC devices and have the realize
> functions actually exercised? (My assumption is no, but a confirmation
> would save time.)
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
I see. thanks for your reply!