On 10/7/25 17:35, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 10/07/2025 12:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

On 10/7/25 12:53, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 10/7/25 10:52, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Now that we can guarantee the isapc machine will never have a PCI bus, any
instances of rom_memory can be replaced by system_memory and rom_memory
removed completely.

Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.caveayl...@nutanix.com>
---
  hw/i386/isapc.c | 3 +--
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/i386/isapc.c b/hw/i386/isapc.c
index bb22083821..27c075b5f3 100644
--- a/hw/i386/isapc.c
+++ b/hw/i386/isapc.c
@@ -35,7 +35,6 @@ static void pc_init_isa(MachineState *machine)
      ISABus *isa_bus;
      GSIState *gsi_state;
      MemoryRegion *ram_memory;
-    MemoryRegion *rom_memory = system_memory;
      DriveInfo *hd[MAX_IDE_BUS * MAX_IDE_DEVS];
      uint32_t irq;
      int i;
@@ -73,7 +72,7 @@ static void pc_init_isa(MachineState *machine)
      /* allocate ram and load rom/bios */
      if (!xen_enabled()) {
-        pc_memory_init(pcms, system_memory, rom_memory, 0);
+        pc_memory_init(pcms, system_memory, system_memory, 0);

I'd prefer just call here:

   x86_bios_rom_init(X86_MACHINE(pcms), "bios.bin", rom_memory, true);

and in pc_system_firmware_init(): assert(pcmc->pci_enabled).

WDYT?

What I have in mind (untested):

-- >8 --
diff --git a/hw/i386/isapc.c b/hw/i386/isapc.c
index 27c075b5f32..a7c2146916c 100644
--- a/hw/i386/isapc.c
+++ b/hw/i386/isapc.c
@@ -74,3 +74,4 @@ static void pc_init_isa(MachineState *machine)
      if (!xen_enabled()) {
-        pc_memory_init(pcms, system_memory, system_memory, 0);
+        pc_memory_init(pcms, system_memory, NULL, 0);
+        x86_bios_rom_init(X86_MACHINE(pcms), "bios.bin", system_memory, true);
      } else {
diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
index b2116335752..2952d3ee4ff 100644
--- a/hw/i386/pc.c
+++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
@@ -811,3 +811,3 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
                      MemoryRegion *system_memory,
-                    MemoryRegion *rom_memory,
+                    MemoryRegion *pci_memory,
                      uint64_t pci_hole64_size)
@@ -826,2 +826,3 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,

+    assert(pcmc->pci_enabled ^ !!pci_memory);
      assert(machine->ram_size == x86ms->below_4g_mem_size +
@@ -955,3 +956,5 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
      /* Initialize PC system firmware */
-    pc_system_firmware_init(pcms, rom_memory);
+    if (pcmc->pci_enabled) {
+        pc_system_firmware_init(pcms, pci_memory);
+    }

@@ -969,3 +972,3 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
          }
-        memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(rom_memory,
+        memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(pci_memory,
                                              PC_ROM_MIN_VGA,
diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c b/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
index 821396c16e9..0c29e4188fc 100644
--- a/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
+++ b/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
@@ -221,6 +221,3 @@ void pc_system_firmware_init(PCMachineState *pcms,

-    if (!pcmc->pci_enabled) {
-        x86_bios_rom_init(X86_MACHINE(pcms), "bios.bin", rom_memory, true);
-        return;
-    }
+    assert(pcmc->pci_enabled);

I think that's a good idea, however the original aim of this series was just to do the basic split and tidy-up work (hopefully in time for 10.1).

There is certainly more tidy-up that is possible w.r.t. pc.c, but I didn't want to start unraveling that thread right now for fear of this series getting too large :/

Fair enough.

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>


Reply via email to