On Thu, 21 May 2020 18:02:07 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 13/05/20 17:34, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > I'd rather avoid using random IRQ numbers (considering we are > > dealing with black-box here). So if it's really necessary to have > > IRQ described here, I'd suggest to implement them in device model > > so they would be reserved and QEMU would error out in a sane way if > > IRQ conflict is detected. > > We don't generally detect ISA IRQ conflicts though, do we? that I don't know that's why I'm not suggesting how to do it. The point is hard-coding in AML random IRQs is not right thing to do, (especially with the lack of 'any' spec), as minimum AML should pull it from device model and that probably should be configurable and set by board. Other thing is: I haven't looked at VMBus device model in detail, but DSDT part aren't matching device though (device model is not ISA device hence AML part shouldn't be on in ISA scope), where to put it is open question. There were other issues with AML code, I've commented on, so I was waiting on respin with comments addressed. I don't think that this patch is good enough for merging. > > Paolo >
