Re: [PATCH-for-5.0? 3/3] hw/openrisc/pic_cpu: Use qdev gpio rather than qemu_allocate_irqs()

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>]

Hi Stafford,

On 4/13/20 1:33 AM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:29:43PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Switch to using the qdev gpio API which is preferred over
>> qemu_allocate_irqs(). Doing so we also stop leaking the
>> allocated memory. One step to eventually deprecate and
>> remove qemu_allocate_irqs() one day.
>>
>> Patch created mechanically using spatch with this script
>> inspired from commit d6ef883d9d7:
>>
>>   @@
>>   typedef qemu_irq;
>>   identifier irqs, handler;
>>   expression opaque, count, i;
>>   @@
>>   -   qemu_irq *irqs;
>>       ...
>>   -   irqs = qemu_allocate_irqs(handler, opaque, count);
>>   +   qdev_init_gpio_in(DEVICE(opaque), handler, count);
>>       <+...
>>   -   irqs[i]
>>   +   qdev_get_gpio_in(DEVICE(opaque), i)
>>       ...+>
>>   ?-  g_free(irqs);
>>
>> Inspired-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
>> ---
>>  hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c | 5 ++---
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c b/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c
>> index 36f9350830..4b0c92f842 100644
>> --- a/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c
>> +++ b/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c
>> @@ -52,10 +52,9 @@ static void openrisc_pic_cpu_handler(void *opaque, int irq, int level)
>>  void cpu_openrisc_pic_init(OpenRISCCPU *cpu)
>>  {
>>      int i;
>> -    qemu_irq *qi;
>> -    qi = qemu_allocate_irqs(openrisc_pic_cpu_handler, cpu, NR_IRQS);
>> +    qdev_init_gpio_in(DEVICE(cpu), openrisc_pic_cpu_handler, NR_IRQS);
>>  
>>      for (i = 0; i < NR_IRQS; i++) {
>> -        cpu->env.irq[i] = qi[i];
>> +        cpu->env.irq[i] = qdev_get_gpio_in(DEVICE(cpu), i);
>>      }
>>  }
> 
> This looks fine to me.
> 
> Why do you have the '5.0?' in the subject?

Simply because similar commit d6ef883d9d7 was merged in 5.0-rc1 (and it
fixes a bug reported by Coverity, I'm not sure why Coverity didn't
reported this too).

> 
> -Stafford
>