[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] hw/ide: Do ide_drive_get() within pci_ide_create_devs()
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:30:52 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

On 3/16/20 7:23 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> 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.


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


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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]