Am 19.11.2013 21:01, schrieb Peter Maydell: > I find myself with a use case where I would like to set > a CPU object property from the board model init function > (specifically, I'd like the board model to be able to say > "this CPU will boot via PSCI so if you're KVM then start > it appropriately"). > > I could just reach in and fiddle with the ARMCPU field > the way hw/arm/highback.c does with reset_cbar (and in fact > that's what I'm likely to do for the moment). However it > seems like it would be nicer for it to be an official > QOM property. This is alas not currently possible because > cpu_arm_init() does both 'init' and 'realize', and once > you've called it it's too late to set properties. > > Andreas -- did you have any thoughts/plans/code in this area? > Splitting the realize part out of cpu_arm_init(), or > providing a cpu_arm_init_dont_realize() [ugh], would be > easy to code but is it going in the right direction?
My first thought without reviewing the code is to just inline object_new() followed by object_property_set_bool() in the machine - that's what I've done for my downstream rl78, where I needed to postpone realizing the CPU until the firmware blob had been loaded (similar to armv7m, you may remember pointing me to that example :)). You are free to split cpu_arm_init() into calling a non-realizing function, followed by the realization step, then you can reuse that in multiple places if needed. Mid-term I intend cpu_*_init() to not realize the CPU - for boards that is waiting on the recursive realization support, so that only *-user would need to manually realize the CPU. I would by contrast caution not to blindly use global properties for cpu_arm_init() since mixed cores are getting more and more common. For x86 that is much less problematic. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
