Re: [PATCH v6 06/10] hw/fsi: Aspeed APB2OPB interface

[Andrew Jeffery]

On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 10:27 -0500, Ninad Palsule wrote:
> Hello Cedric,
> 
> 
> On 10/24/23 10:21, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> > On 10/24/23 17:00, Ninad Palsule wrote:
> > > Hello Cedric,
> > > 
> > > On 10/24/23 02:46, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> > > > and the fsi_opb_* routines are useless to me.
> > > We are trying to keep the separation between OPB implementation and 
> > > interface hence we have all those fsi_opb_*. I feel that we should 
> > > keep as it is so that future extensions will be easier. Please let me 
> > > know.
> > 
> > Well, I can't really tell because I don't know enough about FSI :/
> > 
> > The models look fragile and I have spent already a lot of time trying
> > to untangle what they are trying to do. Please ask your teammates or
> > let's see in the next QEMU cycle.
> 
> I have decided to go with the approach you suggested and it looks much 
> better. Fixed it.

I intended to reply to this before Ninad sent out v7, but life
intervened.

If we can't justify it with the code we have now I think it's right to
pull it out. Add the code to support the things we're trying to do when
we need to do them. As long as we don't do anything that precludes us
from adding that code later (and I can't really imagine how we'd corner
ourselves like that).

We should bear in mind I wrote the initial models several years ago in
the space of about a week while I was trying to learn FSI (and more
deeply about the QEMU bus and address space modelling). I think I was
doing that to unblock some CI due to the introduction of the kernel
driver for the Aspeed FSI hardware. The models were pretty rough -
prior to all this review the code reflected my hazy understanding of
the problems. I didn't get time to remove the complexities introduced
by my misunderstandings, and now it's been so long that I'm not much
help with fixing them.

Andrew