On 05/01/2012 03:49 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 1 May 2012 13:48, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 05/01/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 1 May 2012 13:42, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > sysbus should just die.
> >> Totally agreed. It's not going to go quietly though...
> > Not if you keep suggesting workarounds when I tell unsuspecting
> > developers to qomify their devices.
> When QOM supports (1) exporting gpio signals and (2)
> exporting memory regions, then it will be providing the
> main things that sysbus provides. (Sysbus today is essentially
> "I need a device that exports some memory regions and some
> I/O pins".) At that point it will be sensible to say "convert
> your sysbus devices to QOM". Until QOM is actually able to
> provide the functionality, it's not a workable replacement.
Doesn't property<MemoryRegion> (or however it's phrased) provide the
functionality for memory?
But I agree.
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function