On 04/30/2012 04:40 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 30 April 2012 14:36, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 04/30/2012 04:27 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 30 April 2012 14:23, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > IMO the best fix is to unsysbus the device and qomify it instead. This > >> > way we're 100% flexible in how we can attach it. > >> > >> You don't need to wait for QOM to grow enough features to > >> replace sysbus. If you don't like what sysbus_mmio_map() does, you > >> can always use sysbus_mmio_get_region() to get the MemoryRegion* and > >> then deal with it however you need to. This is the standard way > >> to deal with "I have a sysbus device which I want to map into my > >> custom container object". > > > > I believe that API voids you warrantee. > > I wrote it for essentially the purpose described above :-) > If you're the owner of the sysbus device in question then it's > entirely fine as you are the one deciding whether to use the > traditional map function or not. > > It's as good as we're going to get until QOM actually lets > you export memory regions and pins, at which point we can just > convert all the sysbus devices.
Sure. But expect breakage if sysbus changes, for example dropping use of get_system_memory(). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
