On 18/05/2020 06:03, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> These devices go with the "via-pmu" device, which is controlled by
> property "has-pmu". macio_newworld_init() creates it unconditionally,
> because the property has not been set then. macio_newworld_realize()
> realizes it only when the property is true. Works, although it can
> leave an unrealized device hanging around in the QOM composition tree.
> Affects machine mac99 with via=cuda (default).
>
> Bury the unwanted device by making macio_newworld_realize() unparent
> it. Visible in "info qom-tree":
>
> /machine (mac99-machine)
> [...]
> /unattached (container)
> /device[9] (macio-newworld)
> [...]
> /escc-legacy-port[8] (qemu:memory-region)
> /escc-legacy-port[9] (qemu:memory-region)
> /escc-legacy[0] (qemu:memory-region)
> - /gpio (macio-gpio)
> - /gpio[0] (qemu:memory-region)
> /ide[0] (macio-ide)
> /ide.0 (IDE)
> /pmac-ide[0] (qemu:memory-region)
>
> Cc: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>
> Cc: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> Cc: qemu-...@nongnu.org
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/misc/macio/macio.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/misc/macio/macio.c b/hw/misc/macio/macio.c
> index 3779865ab2..b3dddf8be7 100644
> --- a/hw/misc/macio/macio.c
> +++ b/hw/misc/macio/macio.c
> @@ -368,6 +368,8 @@ static void macio_newworld_realize(PCIDevice *d, Error
> **errp)
> memory_region_add_subregion(&s->bar, 0x16000,
> sysbus_mmio_get_region(sysbus_dev, 0));
> } else {
> + object_unparent(OBJECT(&ns->gpio));
> +
> /* CUDA */
> object_initialize_child(OBJECT(s), "cuda", &s->cuda, sizeof(s->cuda),
> TYPE_CUDA, &error_abort, NULL);
This one is a little more interesting because it comes back to the previous
discussions around if you have a device that contains other devices, should you
init
all the children in your container device init, and the realize all your
children in
your container device realize?
If so I guess this patch isn't technically wrong, but it is somewhat misleading
given
that the existing init/realize pattern here is incorrect. Perhaps it should go
ahead
and make everything work the "right way"?
ATB,
Mark.
