On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 17:21 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/10/2013 14:41, Marcel Apfelbaum ha scritto:
> > +static inline void pci_irq_pulse(PCIDevice *pci_dev)
> > +{
> > +pci_irq_lower(pci_dev);
> > +pci_irq_raise(pci_dev);
> > +}
> > +
>
> Why is this in the opposite order, compare
Il 02/10/2013 14:41, Marcel Apfelbaum ha scritto:
> +static inline void pci_irq_pulse(PCIDevice *pci_dev)
> +{
> +pci_irq_lower(pci_dev);
> +pci_irq_raise(pci_dev);
> +}
> +
Why is this in the opposite order, compared to qemu_irq_pulse?
Paolo
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 15:54 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:41:27PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> > Interrupt pin is selected and saved into PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN
> > register during device initialization. Devices should not call
> > directly qemu_set_irq and specify th
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:41:27PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> Interrupt pin is selected and saved into PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN
> register during device initialization. Devices should not call
> directly qemu_set_irq and specify the INTx pin on each call.
>
> Added pci_* wrappers to replace qemu_se
Interrupt pin is selected and saved into PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN
register during device initialization. Devices should not call
directly qemu_set_irq and specify the INTx pin on each call.
Added pci_* wrappers to replace qemu_set_irq, qemu_irq_raise,
qemu_irq_lower and qemu_irq_pulse, setting the irq
ba
