[ ... ]
>>> +static qemu_irq spapr_qirq_dual(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq)
>>> +{
>>> + return spapr_irq_current(spapr)->qirq(spapr, irq);
>>> +}
>>
>> This still makes me really nervous - I'd really prefer to have qirqs
>> independent of the backend, rather than relying on *every* irq using
>> device never looking up qirqs in advance.
>
> I will take a look. This is a large rework I won't have time to address
> this year. I have removed the dual machine from v9.
>
> You would move the qirq array at the machine level ?
I took a look today and did a few changes :
- move the qirq array at the machine level
- introduced a 'set_irq' method to sPAPR IRQ
- adapted the 'qirq' method of sPAPR IRQ. We still need to perform some
checks and to handle the IRQ number offset.
It falls well in place, a part for the ICS source of the PnvPSI model
which does not have any qirq anymore. For PSI, I am thinking of moving
the qirq array under PnvPSI model, like I did for the machine.
Would that be ok ?
I think there are a couple more possible cleanups on the different ICS
models to do if these changes are acceptable.
C.
