On 30/11/2018 10:31, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 29/11/2018 21:42, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 11/22/18 11:35 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
Two good reasons to use the base device as a child of the
AP BUS:
- We can easily find the device without traversing the qtree.
- In case we have different APdevice instantiation, VFIO with
interception or emulation, we will need the APDevice as
a parent device.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com>
---
hw/s390x/ap-device.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/vfio/ap.c | 16 ++++++----------
include/hw/s390x/ap-device.h | 2 ++
3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/s390x/ap-device.c b/hw/s390x/ap-device.c
index f5ac8db..554d5aa 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/ap-device.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/ap-device.c
@@ -11,13 +11,35 @@
#include "qemu/module.h"
#include "qapi/error.h"
#include "hw/qdev.h"
+#include "hw/s390x/ap-bridge.h"
#include "hw/s390x/ap-device.h"
+APDevice *s390_get_ap(void)
How about ap_get_device(void)?
Yes, keep same conventions.
Apropos convention, this function is exported.
So I think the s390 prefix is important.
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
