Re: [PATCH 09/24] macio: Fix to realize "mos6522-cuda" and "mos6522-pmu" devices

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 06:12, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> cuda_init() creates a "mos6522-cuda" device, but it's never realized.
> Affects machines mac99 with via=cuda (default) and g3beige.
>
> pmu_init() creates a "mos6522-pmu" device, but it's never realized.
> Affects machine mac99 with via=pmu and via=pmu-adb,
>
> I wonder how this ever worked.  If the "device becomes real only on
> realize" thing actually works, then we've always been missing these
> devices, yet nobody noticed.

Same remark as elsewhere: the devices aren't missing, we just
got lucky that using them in a half-initialized state happens
to work for these devices. Could you update the commit messages
when you reroll this series, please?

> Fix by realizing them in cuda_realize() and pmu_realize(),
> respectively.
>
> Fixes: 6dca62a0000f95e0b7020aa00d0ca9b2c421f341
> Cc: Laurent Vivier <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/misc/macio/cuda.c | 8 +++-----
>  hw/misc/macio/pmu.c  | 8 +++-----
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/misc/macio/cuda.c b/hw/misc/macio/cuda.c
> index e0cc0aac5d..6d4d135f71 100644
> --- a/hw/misc/macio/cuda.c
> +++ b/hw/misc/macio/cuda.c
> @@ -523,15 +523,13 @@ static void cuda_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>  {
>      CUDAState *s = CUDA(dev);
>      SysBusDevice *sbd;
> -    MOS6522State *ms;
> -    DeviceState *d;
>      struct tm tm;
>
> +    qdev_init_nofail(DEVICE(&s->mos6522_cuda));

Since we init the device with sysbus_init_child_obj() and
we're in a position here to propagate any realize error
back up to our caller, it would be nicer to do this via
setting the realize property rather than qdev_init_nofail().

That's what this patch from March does:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-03/msg04260.html
(we seem to have let that series drop accidentally,
probably because it was halfway through release and
because it touches several architectures at once).

thanks
-- PMM