On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:56:36AM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > On Tuesday 03 March 2009 20:42:07 Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Hi Sheng, > > > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:29:27PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > > > This framework can be easily extended to support device capability, like > > > MSI/MSI-x. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > qemu/hw/pci.c | 85 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ qemu/hw/pci.h | > > > 30 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > @@ -205,6 +215,15 @@ struct PCIDevice { > > > > > > /* Current IRQ levels. Used internally by the generic PCI code. */ > > > int irq_state[4]; > > > + > > > + /* Device capability configuration space */ > > > + struct { > > > + int supported; > > > + uint8_t config[PCI_CAPABILITY_CONFIG_MAX_LENGTH]; > > > + unsigned int start, length; > > > + PCICapConfigReadFunc *config_read; > > > + PCICapConfigWriteFunc *config_write; > > > + } cap; > > > }; > > > > Why do you have a copy of the capabilities config space? Why not just > > access PCIDevice->config directly? > > I am not sure upstream would accept which. Separate the logic seems more > clear > and easy to accept to me...
You have to maintain two copies of the same data. Whats the point? The logic can be separate with a unified config space, no? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
