From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35284) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya4jz-0005SJ-EN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:58:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya4jt-0001II-Cb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:58:11 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]:34062) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya4jt-0001I4-4v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:58:05 -0400 Received: by wegp1 with SMTP id p1so141505601weg.1 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <55103808.8000203@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:58:00 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1426953265-19940-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <87twxct6yq.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <55100193.5000701@redhat.com> <87wq27n8ed.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.3] sdhci: add "drive" property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Crosthwaite , Markus Armbruster Cc: Peter Maydell , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , "Edgar E. Iglesias" On 23/03/2015 16:01, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > Note that SD has a SPI mode, every SD card is in theory a valid SSI > device. We could unify SD under SSI to achieve both QOMification and > busification. That wouldn't really be the way most SD cards work, anyway. The protocol doesn't do simultaneous bidirectional transfers like SSI does. With your proposal the right way to invoke sdhci-pci would be "-device sdhci-pci,id=sdhci -drive if=none,...,id=sd -device sd,drive=sd,bus=sdhci.0". Similarly, instantiating an SD card on an SSI bus would be "-device ssi-sd,id=ssisd -drive if=none,...,id=sd -device sd,drive=sd,bus=ssisd.0". > I would then expect the block setup of sd.c to be very similar to > hw/block/m25p80.c (SPI flash). Absolutely not, hw/block/m25p80.c has the same issue of doing drive_get_next in the realize function. Paolo