> From: Alistair Francis [mailto:alistai...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 5 January 2016 18:14 > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Andrew Baumann > <andrew.baum...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > This device maintains all the non-CPU peripherals on bcm2835 (Pi1) > > which are also present on bcm2836 (Pi2). It also implements the > > private address spaces used for DMA and mailboxes. [...] > > + obj = object_property_get_link(OBJECT(dev), "ram", &err); > > + if (obj == NULL) { > > + error_setg(errp, "%s: required ram link not found: %s", > > + __func__, error_get_pretty(err)); > > + return; > > + } > > I only had a quick read of this patch, but this RAM linking looks fine > to me. Out of curiosity is there a reason you use > object_property_get_link() instead of object_property_add_link() in > the init?
I'm not sure I understand your question... it wouldn't work the other way. I allocate the ram and add the link using object_property_add_const_link() in hw/arm/raspi.c. This file needs to consume the ram to setup alias mappings, so it is using get_link(). (Note there's also level of indirection; raspi creates bcm2836, which does nothing but get the link set by its parent and add it to its bcm2835_peripherals child.) I suppose I could do it the other way around (allocate and set link in bcm2835_peripherals, based on a size passed from the board), but it seemed more logical to treat the RAM as created/owned of the board rather than the SoC. Cheers, Andrew
