Am 18.06.2013 12:23, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:43:11PM +1000, peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com wrote: >> From: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> >> >> >> This series enables QOM super class access and demostrates some usages. >> Replaces the save->override->call via FooClass technique, to reduce >> some of the boiler plate in recently fully QOMified devices. >> >> Applied the change to ARM CPU, MB CPU and some of Andreas's recently >> QOMified i386 devices, all which have the save->override->call issue. >> ARMCPU I've done a brief test on and seems to work. >> >> ARM CPU was particularly difficult, as it has 3 layers of heirachy, >> where a non-concrete class (TYPE_ARM_CPU) need to super class itself >> (to TYPE_CPU). This sees the need for super-classers to specify their >> expected base class level. See patches for illustration. >> >> The main future work to the series is to apply the change pattern to >> the reset of the tree > > Looks good to me overall. > Some nits: > - Super is an immediate parent in java and python. > - One of the design points of QOM is that it let > you ignore which class is a parent and which is a child. > All casts look the same. > > So, why do we need the new APIs with _SUPER? > What's wrong with simple > object_class_by_name() > and casting to that?
I guess the idea was to avoid open-coding that multiple times, but I think I would then prefer something more local like #define ARM_CPU_SUPER_CLASS() \ object_class_get_parent(object_class_by_name(TYPE_ARM_CPU)) and then use DEVICE_CLASS(ARM_CPU_SUPER_CLASS()) or CPU_CLASS(ARM_CPU_SUPER_CLASS()) as needed. What do you think? Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
