On 05.01.2010, at 23:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 08:32:50AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> +typedef void (*pci_config_reg_fn)(PCIHostState *s, uint32_t config_reg,
>> + PCIConfigAddress *conf);
>> +
>
> pci_decode_config_addr_fn would be a better name.
>
>> struct PCIHostState {
>> SysBusDevice busdev;
>> + pci_config_reg_fn decode_config_reg;
>> + PCIConfigAddress config_reg_dec;
>
> decode_config_addr
> and
> config_addr
>
> would be better names
>
>> uint32_t config_reg;
>> PCIBus *bus;
>> };
>>
>> void pci_data_write(PCIBus *s, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val, int len);
>> uint32_t pci_data_read(PCIBus *s, uint32_t addr, int len);
>> +void pci_host_init(PCIHostState *s);
>> +void pci_host_decode_config_reg(PCIHostState *s, uint32_t config_reg,
>> + PCIConfigAddress *decoded);
>
> Shouldn't this be static?
No, since I want to call it from unin for the OpenBIOS compatibility call. We
still use the x86 encoding for the BIOS (for now).
> And again, pci_host_decode_config_addr would be a better name IMO.
Alrighty.
Alex
