On 12/12/2012 06:28:02 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 13.12.2012, at 01:20, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 06:04:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> We could call bus->map_irq(...) with an artificially created
PCIDevice struct ;). But that's pretty hacky.
>
> If we do anything like that, it should probably be to iterate over
the devices that actually exist and add interrupt-map entries only
for those.
Right. Though I'm not sure how pci hotplug slots would look like in
that model. I don't think we have PCIDevice structs there yet, but we
would still need to keep interrupt maps ready.
Note that if we did limit it to only devices that actually exist, we'd
be producing a smaller interrupt-map than would be found on real
hardware for targets like mpc8544ds, if the slots aren't fully
populated.
>> So you're indicating you'd like the below patch?
>
> I think you pasted a bit more than one patch, but yes.
Yikes. It's way past midnight after all :).
You mean I messed up and pasted more than I wanted or that I should
split the patch? :)
The former. :-)
>> agraf@lychee:/home/agraf/release/qemu> git add hw/ppce500_pci.h
>> agraf@lychee:/home/agraf/release/qemu> git diff HEAD
>> agraf@lychee:/home/agraf/release/qemu> git diff HEAD | cat
>
> What does piping through cat get you?
Piping through cat gets me that I don't get the patch in less, so I
can easily copy&paste it from my terminal into the email client even
though it's bigger than my terminal window. Also not using less means
that formatting stays consistent.
Ah, forgot about git doing different things based on what stdout is.
-Scott
