On Thu, 21 May 2020 18:02:07 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
On 13/05/20 17:34, Igor Mammedov wrote:
I'd rather avoid using random IRQ numbers (considering we are
dealing with black-box here). So if it's really necessary to have
IRQ described here, I'd suggest to implement them in device model
so they would be reserved and QEMU would error out in a sane way if
IRQ conflict is detected.
We don't generally detect ISA IRQ conflicts though, do we?
that I don't know that's why I'm not suggesting how to do it.
The point is hard-coding in AML random IRQs is not right thing to do,
(especially with the lack of 'any' spec), as minimum AML should pull
it from device model and that probably should be configurable and set
by board.
Other thing is:
I haven't looked at VMBus device model in detail, but DSDT part aren't
matching device though (device model is not ISA device hence AML part
shouldn't be on in ISA scope), where to put it is open question.
There were other issues with AML code, I've commented on, so I was
waiting on respin with comments addressed.
I don't think that this patch is good enough for merging.