>
> We shouldn't really use the term IRQ as it's confusing. I like the term
> "pin" better because that describes what we're really talking about.
>
> qemu_irq is designed oddly today because is represents something that is
> intrinsically state (whether a pin is high or low) with an edge
> notification with the assumption that the state is held somewhere else
> (which is usually true).
I don't agree. That's not what qemu_irq represents.
It represents a wire, a mechanism to drive changes through logic paths
between state. It is intrinsically stateless.
It may be the case that it is missused in some places, or that it isn't
always the best thing to use to represent what ever you need to represent,
so that you want to complement with other mechanisms.
But universally replacing it with a stateful alternative seems wrong to me.