Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes:
> On 26 January 2012 19:00, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> We need to modeled MemoryRegions and qemu_irq in QOM too.
>
> +1 : this ought to let us get rid of SysBus...
>
>> MemoryRegions
>> shouldn't be that difficult. Our habit of passing qemu_irq's as arrays
>> without
>> an explicit size will probably require some refactoring but in principle,
>> supporting irqs should be easy too.
>
> I think that there are probably a lot of cases where we're using an array
> of qemu_irqs now but should be using separately named signals of some sort
> instead (particularly where we're using them for things which aren't actually
> IRQs...)
Apropos array of qemu_irq: we're leaking them in several places.
qemu_allocate_irqs() returns a pointer to an array of qemu_irq whose
elements to point into an array of *qemu_irq. Both arrays are malloced.
Many callers ask for just one IRQ like this:
*qemu_allocate_irqs(..., 1)
This leaks the array of qemu_irq.
There are other, less obvious leaks of the returned array.
