Re: [PATCH 6/8] hw/ide: Do ide_drive_get() within pci_ide_create_devs()

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 3/16/20 7:23 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 13/03/20 23:16, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +    pci_dev = pci_create_simple(pci_bus, -1, "cmd646-ide");
>>>> +    pci_ide_create_devs(pci_dev);
>>>
>>> Additionally, I think it may also make sense to move pci_ide_create_devs
>>> call into the realize methods of these IDE controllers so boards do not
>>> need to do it explicitely. These calls always follow the creation of the
>>> device immediately so could just be done internally in IDE device and
>>> simplify it further. I can attempt to prepare additional patches for
>>> that but first I'd like to hear if anyone has anything against that to
>>> avoid doing useless work.
>>
>> No, it's better to do it separately.  I think that otherwise you could
>> add another IDE controller with -device, and both controllers would try
>> to add the drives.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Creating device frontends for -drive if=ide is the board's job.  Boards
> may delegate to suitable helpers.  I'd very much prefer these helpers
> not to live with device model code.  Board and device model code should
> be cleanly separated to to reduce the temptation to muddle their
> responsibilities.  It's separation of concerns.
> 
> I actually wish we had separate sub-trees for boards and devices instead
> of keeping both in hw/.

Never too late!

To be clear, you suggest:

- one dir with machines, boards, system-on-module
- one dir with devices, cpu, system-on-chips

Correct?

> 
>> Basically, separating the call means that only automatically added
>> controllers obey "if=ide".
>