Am 15. Oktober 2024 09:27:40 UTC schrieb Peter Maydell
<peter.mayd...@linaro.org>:
>On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 19:50, Bernhard Beschow <shen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 14. Oktober 2024 12:47:52 UTC schrieb Peter Maydell
>> <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>:
>> >> +typedef struct Lan9118PhyState {
>> >> + uint32_t status;
>> >> + uint32_t control;
>> >> + uint32_t advertise;
>> >> + uint32_t ints;
>> >> + uint32_t int_mask;
>> >> + IRQState irq;
>> >> + bool link_down;
>> >> +} Lan9118PhyState;
>> >
>> >This takes state that was in a QOM object, and moves it
>> >into something that's kind of a device but not a QOM
>> >object. I think we should avoid that, because at some
>> >point somebody's going to have to QOMify this.
>> >
>> >Making this a QOM device is a bit awkward for migration
>> >compatibility, unfortunately.
>>
>> Do we care about migration compatibility here? Or is it
>> sufficient to check the version? In the latter case I could
>> QOMify it.
>
>
>Doing a quick grep it looks like the lan9118 is only
>used in a set of Arm boards and none of them are ones where
>we care about migration across versions.
Four i.mx boards using imx_fec will also be affected. None is versioned afaics.
>So I think we're
>ok to break compat with a version-bump. We should mention
>the affected boards in the commit message.
Will do.
Thanks,
Bernhard
>
>-- PMM
