On 5/27/25 4:32 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouv...@linaro.org> writes:
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
We'd like to have some unified QAPI schema. Having a structure field
conditional to a target being built in is not very practical.
While @deprecated-props is only used by s390x target, it is generic
enough and could be used by other targets (assuming we expand
CpuModelExpansionType enum values).
Let's always include this field, regardless of the target, but make it
optional. This is not a compatibility break only because the field
remains present always on S390x.
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouv...@linaro.org>
---
qapi/machine-target.json | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qapi/machine-target.json b/qapi/machine-target.json
index 426ce4ee82d..d8dbda4b508 100644
--- a/qapi/machine-target.json
+++ b/qapi/machine-target.json
@@ -244,19 +244,18 @@
#
# @model: the expanded CpuModelInfo.
#
-# @deprecated-props: a list of properties that are flagged as
+# @deprecated-props: an optional list of properties that are flagged as
# deprecated by the CPU vendor. The list depends on the
# CpuModelExpansionType: "static" properties are a subset of the
# enabled-properties for the expanded model; "full" properties are
# a set of properties that are deprecated across all models for
-# the architecture. (since: 9.1).
+# the architecture. (since: 10.1 -- since 9.1 on s390x --).
#
# Since: 2.8
##
{ 'struct': 'CpuModelExpansionInfo',
'data': { 'model': 'CpuModelInfo',
- 'deprecated-props' : { 'type': ['str'],
- 'if': 'TARGET_S390X' } },
+ '*deprecated-props' : ['str'] },
'if': { 'any': [ 'TARGET_S390X',
'TARGET_I386',
'TARGET_ARM',
[Copied from review of prior posts]
When I see "optional array", I wonder about the difference between
"absent" and "present and empty". The doc comment doesn't quite explain
it. I figure "present and empty" means empty, while "absent" means we
don't know / not implemented.
Is the difference useful?
Daniel doubts it is.
[end of copy]
Let's take with this patch as is. If we prefer to remove the
difference, we can do so on top.
I didn't answer to this question because I have no opinion on it.
If I have to pick an answer, following Daniel, I doubt the difference is
useful also, as it's not changing anything for s390, which is the only
producer for this entry.
Thanks,
Pierrick
