Am 25.06.2015 um 19:00 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 25/06/2015 04:17, Zhu Guihua wrote:
Add a wrapper to specify reset order when registering reset handler,
instead of non-obvious initiazation code ordering.
Signed-off-by: Zhu Guihua <address@hidden>
I'm sorry, this is not really acceptable. The initialization code
ordering is good because it should be okay to run reset handlers in the
same order as code is run. If there are dependencies between reset
handlers, a random integer is not a maintainable way to maintain them.
Instead, you should have a single reset handler that calls the reset
handlers in the right order; for example a qdev bus such as icc_bus
always resets children before parents.
Are you sure that you want to remove the icc_bus?... What are you
gaining exactly by doing so?
>From my view we would be gaining by making the APIC an integral part
(child<>) of the CPU in a follow-up step (there's a TODO to make things
link<>s).
But either way the CPU's existing reset handler should be able to handle
CPU/APIC interdependencies just fine, somehow. Which is what Eduardo
said on v6 and v7. (Another alternative he raised was a machine init
notifier, but I see no code for that after its mention on v7?)