On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 11.07.2013 12:31, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin: >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:47:59AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:47:16 +1000 >>> peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com wrote: >>> >>>> From: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> >>>> >>>> ARMCPUClass is only needed for parent-class abstract function access. >>>> Just use parent classes for reset and realize access and remove >>>> ARMCPUClass completely. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> target-arm/cpu-qom.h | 20 -------------------- >>>> target-arm/cpu.c | 16 +++++++--------- >>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu-qom.h b/target-arm/cpu-qom.h >>>> index ef6261f..bdad93a 100644 >>>> --- a/target-arm/cpu-qom.h >>>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu-qom.h >>>> @@ -24,28 +24,8 @@ >>>> >>>> #define TYPE_ARM_CPU "arm-cpu" >>>> >>>> -#define ARM_CPU_CLASS(klass) \ >>>> - OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(ARMCPUClass, (klass), TYPE_ARM_CPU) >>>> #define ARM_CPU(obj) \ >>>> OBJECT_CHECK(ARMCPU, (obj), TYPE_ARM_CPU) >>>> -#define ARM_CPU_GET_CLASS(obj) \ >>>> - OBJECT_GET_CLASS(ARMCPUClass, (obj), TYPE_ARM_CPU) >>>> - >>>> -/** >>>> - * ARMCPUClass: >>>> - * @parent_realize: The parent class' realize handler. >>>> - * @parent_reset: The parent class' reset handler. >>>> - * >>>> - * An ARM CPU model. >>>> - */ >>>> -typedef struct ARMCPUClass { >>>> - /*< private >*/ >>>> - CPUClass parent_class; >>>> - /*< public >*/ >>>> - >>>> - DeviceRealize parent_realize; >>>> - void (*parent_reset)(CPUState *cpu); >>>> -} ARMCPUClass; >>>> >>>> /** >>>> * ARMCPU: >>>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.c b/target-arm/cpu.c >>>> index ed53df8..ad5ec7b 100644 >>>> --- a/target-arm/cpu.c >>>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.c >>>> @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ static void cp_reg_reset(gpointer key, gpointer value, >>>> gpointer opaque) >>>> static void arm_cpu_reset(CPUState *s) >>>> { >>>> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(s); >>>> - ARMCPUClass *acc = ARM_CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu); >>>> + CPUClass *cc_parent = >>>> + CPU_CLASS(object_class_get_parent_by_name(TYPE_ARM_CPU)); >>> Maybe object_class_get_parent_of_type() would be less confusing? >>> >>> This usage assumes that parent of TYPE_ARM_CPU is TYPE_CPU and if >>> another TYPE_X added between them, it might break if TYPE_X doesn't >>> re-implement this logic in its reset. >> >> If what's needed is TYPE_CPU, you can just look up the class by name. >
That means the function has knowedge of who the direct parent is which I am trying to avoid. The goal is the Device::realize function knows it has to call the parent version. As for who that direct parent is, that ideally remain abstracted away from here. If you directly reference a parent class by name you also make it hard to change an objects parent (which is currently only defined in one place. > My suggestion was to hide the implementation details behind an > ARM_CPU_GET_PARENT_CLASS(obj) macro. > Respinning. as such. I think this is a good idea. Looks more consistent with neighbouring code as well. Regards, Peter