Am 2. Juli 2024 18:42:23 UTC schrieb Bernhard Beschow <shen...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>Am 1. Juli 2024 12:58:15 UTC schrieb Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>:
>>On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 at 21:01, BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> wrote:
>>>
>>> To avoid a warning about unfreed qemu_irq embed the i8259 irq in the
>>> device state instead of allocating it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
>>> ---
>>> hw/isa/vt82c686.c | 7 ++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/isa/vt82c686.c b/hw/isa/vt82c686.c
>>> index 8582ac0322..834051abeb 100644
>>> --- a/hw/isa/vt82c686.c
>>> +++ b/hw/isa/vt82c686.c
>>> @@ -592,6 +592,8 @@ OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(ViaISAState, VIA_ISA)
>>>
>>> struct ViaISAState {
>>> PCIDevice dev;
>>> +
>>> + IRQState i8259_irq;
>>> qemu_irq cpu_intr;
>>> qemu_irq *isa_irqs_in;
>>> uint16_t irq_state[ISA_NUM_IRQS];
>>> @@ -715,13 +717,12 @@ static void via_isa_realize(PCIDevice *d, Error
>>> **errp)
>>> ViaISAState *s = VIA_ISA(d);
>>> DeviceState *dev = DEVICE(d);
>>> PCIBus *pci_bus = pci_get_bus(d);
>>> - qemu_irq *isa_irq;
>>> ISABus *isa_bus;
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> qdev_init_gpio_out(dev, &s->cpu_intr, 1);
>>> qdev_init_gpio_in_named(dev, via_isa_pirq, "pirq", PCI_NUM_PINS);
>>> - isa_irq = qemu_allocate_irqs(via_isa_request_i8259_irq, s, 1);
>>> + qemu_init_irq(&s->i8259_irq, via_isa_request_i8259_irq, s, 0);
>>> isa_bus = isa_bus_new(dev, pci_address_space(d),
>>> pci_address_space_io(d),
>>> errp);
>>
>>So if I understand correctly, this IRQ line isn't visible
>>from outside this chip,
>
>Actally it is, in the form of the INTR pin. Assuming similar naming
>conventions in vt82xx and piix, one can confirm this by consulting the piix4
>datasheet, "Figure 5. Interrupt Controller Block Diagram". Moreover, the
>pegasos2 schematics (linked in the QEMU documentation) suggest that this pin
>is actually used there, although not modeled in QEMU.
Well, QEMU does actually wire the intr pin in the pegasos2 board code, except
that it isn't a named gpio like in piix4. If we allow this pin to be wired
before the south bridge's realize we might be able to eliminate the
"intermediate irq forwarder" as Phil used to name it, resulting in less and
more efficient code. This solution would basically follow the pattern I
outlined under below link.
Best regards,
Bernhard
> Compare this to how the "intr" pin is exposed by the piix4 device model and
> wired in the Malta board.
>
>> we're just trying to wire together
>>two internal components of the chip? If so, I agree that
>>this seems a better way than creating a named GPIO that
>>we then have to document as a "not really an external
>>connection, don't try to use this" line. (We've done that
>>before I think in other devices, and it works but it's
>>a bit odd-looking.)
>>
>>That said, I do notice that the via_isa_request_i8259_irq()
>>function doesn't do anything except pass the level onto
>>another qemu_irq, so I think the theoretical ideal would be
>>if we could arrange to plumb things directly through rather
>>than needing this extra qemu_irq and function. There's
>>probably a reason (order of device creation/connection?)
>>that doesn't work though.
>
>I think there could be a general pattern of device creation/connection which
>I've outlined here:
>https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/0ffb5fd2-08ce-4cec-9001-e7ac24407...@gmail.com/
>
>Best regards,
>Bernhard
>
>>
>>-- PMM
>>
