Re: [PATCH v2 10/24] macio: Delete unused "macio-gpio" devices

[Markus Armbruster]

Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk> writes:

> On 28/05/2020 12:04, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> These devices go with the "via-pmu" device, which is controlled by
>> property "has-pmu".  macio_newworld_init() creates it unconditionally,
>> because the property has not been set then.  macio_newworld_realize()
>> realizes it only when the property is true.  Works, although it can
>> leave an unrealized device hanging around in the QOM composition tree.
>> Affects machine mac99 with via=cuda (default).
>> 
>> Delete the unused device by making macio_newworld_realize() unparent
>> it.  Visible in "info qom-tree":
>> 
>>      /machine (mac99-machine)
>>        [...]
>>        /unattached (container)
>>          /device[9] (macio-newworld)
>>            [...]
>>            /escc-legacy-port[8] (qemu:memory-region)
>>            /escc-legacy-port[9] (qemu:memory-region)
>>            /escc-legacy[0] (qemu:memory-region)
>>     -      /gpio (macio-gpio)
>>     -        /gpio[0] (qemu:memory-region)
>>            /ide[0] (macio-ide)
>>              /ide.0 (IDE)
>>              /pmac-ide[0] (qemu:memory-region)
>> 
>> Cc: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
>> Cc: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>> Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  hw/misc/macio/macio.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/hw/misc/macio/macio.c b/hw/misc/macio/macio.c
>> index 3779865ab2..b3dddf8be7 100644
>> --- a/hw/misc/macio/macio.c
>> +++ b/hw/misc/macio/macio.c
>> @@ -368,6 +368,8 @@ static void macio_newworld_realize(PCIDevice *d, Error 
>> **errp)
>>          memory_region_add_subregion(&s->bar, 0x16000,
>>                                      sysbus_mmio_get_region(sysbus_dev, 0));
>>      } else {
>> +        object_unparent(OBJECT(&ns->gpio));
>> +
>>          /* CUDA */
>>          object_initialize_child(OBJECT(s), "cuda", &s->cuda, 
>> sizeof(s->cuda),
>>                                  TYPE_CUDA, &error_abort, NULL);
>
> This looks correct to me. Re-reading over the 3 different patch series you've 
> posted,
> I think it makes sense to merge them soon since even though there may be some 
> debate
> over init/realize in places, the benefits would far outweigh the drawbacks 
> IMO.

We can always improve on top.

Rebasing this stuff is quite time-consuming.

> Anyhow for this patch:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>

Thanks!