On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 08:46:01AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 1/28/21 1:46 AM, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 17:14, Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote: > >> > >> and reuse pnv_bmc_set_pnor() to share the setting of the PNOR. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> > >> --- > >> hw/ppc/pnv_bmc.c | 7 +------ > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/pnv_bmc.c b/hw/ppc/pnv_bmc.c > >> index 67ebb16c4d5f..86d16b493539 100644 > >> --- a/hw/ppc/pnv_bmc.c > >> +++ b/hw/ppc/pnv_bmc.c > >> @@ -260,13 +260,8 @@ IPMIBmc *pnv_bmc_create(PnvPnor *pnor) > >> Object *obj; > >> > >> obj = object_new(TYPE_IPMI_BMC_SIMULATOR); > >> - object_ref(OBJECT(pnor)); > >> - object_property_add_const_link(obj, "pnor", OBJECT(pnor)); > > > > I assume it's ok to move the link set to after the realise of the BMC > > object? > > > When 2 objects need to be linked, one has to be realized first. > I suppose this is why it is allowed but I am not expert in that area. > > Greg ? > > That was the case already when defining a "ipmi-bmc-sim" device on the > command line.
Well, the other thing here is that the IPMI_BMC_SIMULATOR isn't a
POWER specific object, and doesn't actually know anything about pnor,
so it never looks at that property. Do we even need it?
>
> C.
>
>
> >> qdev_realize(DEVICE(obj), NULL, &error_fatal);
> >> -
> >> - /* Install the HIOMAP protocol handlers to access the PNOR */
> >> - ipmi_sim_register_netfn(IPMI_BMC_SIMULATOR(obj), IPMI_NETFN_OEM,
> >> - &hiomap_netfn);
> >> + pnv_bmc_set_pnor(IPMI_BMC(obj), pnor);
> >>
> >> return IPMI_BMC(obj);
> >> }
> >>
> >>
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
