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

[Markus Armbruster]

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.
>>
>> 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?

In QOM terms:

* One sub-tree with descendants of TYPE_DEVICE
* One sub-tree with descendants of TYPE_MACHINE