On 18/10/2025 03:41, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thanks much for pitching in to help with reviewing this series.
Hi Harsh,
No worries - I've looked at raven before when working on adding 40p support for
OpenBIOS, so I do have some familiarity.
On 9/19/25 01:51, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 18/09/2025 19:50, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
The raven PCI device does not need a state struct as it has no data to
store there any more, so we can remove that to simplify code.
Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]>
---
hw/pci-host/raven.c | 30 +-----------------------------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/pci-host/raven.c b/hw/pci-host/raven.c
index f8c0be5d21..172f01694c 100644
--- a/hw/pci-host/raven.c
+++ b/hw/pci-host/raven.c
@@ -31,7 +31,6 @@
#include "hw/pci/pci_bus.h"
#include "hw/pci/pci_host.h"
#include "hw/qdev-properties.h"
-#include "migration/vmstate.h"
#include "hw/intc/i8259.h"
#include "hw/irq.h"
#include "hw/or-irq.h"
@@ -40,12 +39,6 @@
#define TYPE_RAVEN_PCI_DEVICE "raven"
#define TYPE_RAVEN_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE "raven-pcihost"
-OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(RavenPCIState, RAVEN_PCI_DEVICE)
-
-struct RavenPCIState {
- PCIDevice dev;
-};
-
typedef struct PRePPCIState PREPPCIState;
DECLARE_INSTANCE_CHECKER(PREPPCIState, RAVEN_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE,
TYPE_RAVEN_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE)
@@ -65,7 +58,6 @@ struct PRePPCIState {
MemoryRegion bm_ram_alias;
MemoryRegion bm_pci_memory_alias;
AddressSpace bm_as;
- RavenPCIState pci_dev;
int contiguous_map;
};
@@ -268,8 +260,7 @@ static void raven_pcihost_realizefn(DeviceState *d, Error
**errp)
"pci-intack", 1);
memory_region_add_subregion(address_space_mem, 0xbffffff0,
&s->pci_intack);
- /* TODO Remove once realize propagates to child devices. */
- qdev_realize(DEVICE(&s->pci_dev), BUS(&s->pci_bus), errp);
+ pci_create_simple(&s->pci_bus, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0), TYPE_RAVEN_PCI_DEVICE);
}
<snip>
@@ -361,7 +334,6 @@ static void raven_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, const void
*data)
static const TypeInfo raven_info = {
.name = TYPE_RAVEN_PCI_DEVICE,
.parent = TYPE_PCI_DEVICE,
- .instance_size = sizeof(RavenPCIState),
.class_init = raven_class_init,
.interfaces = (const InterfaceInfo[]) {
{ INTERFACE_CONVENTIONAL_PCI_DEVICE },
I agree with removing RavenPCIState, but pci_create_simple() isn't the right
solution here because it both init()s and realize()s the inner object. The right
way to do this is for the parent to init() its inner object(s) within its init()
function, and similarly for it to realize() its inner object(s) within its
realize() function.
FWIW it looks as if the same mistake is present in several other hw/pci-host
devices.
So maybe that's not a mistake then. There's no need to init and realize it
separately as this is an internal object which is enough to be created in realize
method and init and realize there at one go for which pci_create_simple is
appropriate. I think this inner object would only need to be init separately if it
exposed something (like a property) that could be inspected or set before realize
but that's not the case here so it does not have to be created in init only in
realize. (A lot of simple devices don't even have init method only realize so init
is only needed for things that have to be set before realize.)
Do we have a consensus here ?
regards,
Harsh
Given there is still some ongoing discussion regarding object modelling, I think this
will require a separate tidy-up so let's go with the pci_create_simple() approach for
now.
The changes to the interrupt routing and readability of some of the changes from a
developer's perspective are still of concern to me.
ATB,
Mark.
