> Am 22.04.2015 um 13:40 schrieb Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com>: > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:14:40 +0200 > Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > >>> On 04/22/2015 10:25 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:06:42 +0200 >>> Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>> >>>>> On 04/17/2015 09:52 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>>> From: Xu Wang <gesa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> >>>>> We have to enable this flag to support dynamically adding devices to the >>>>> sysbus. This change is needed for the the upcoming diag288 watchdog. >>>> s390 doesn't have a "sysbus" per se. Please create a new bus type. >>> So what's wrong with the sysbus? I don't see why we should be different >>> than everyone else. >> >> The idea behind sysbus is that you have MMIO, PIO and IRQ pins >> connecting to a PIC. It provides a lot of infrastructure for those >> interfaces. S390 doesn't use any of them and instead wants registration >> on "diag" interfaces for example which I'd put on the same layer as PIO >> or MMIO registration. > > I don't think a "diag" bus makes sense.
You don't need a bus necessarily, just a parent class. > The individual diagnoses are > way too heterogenous beyond the fact that they use the same base > instruction. > > So where's the proper place for "misc" devices? My impression was that > they can go on the sysbus. > If you really don't want to create your own class, how about you inherit from the DeviceState class? Alex
