On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 23:50:47 +0100 Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 27.11.2013 23:28, schrieb Igor Mammedov: > > Igor Mammedov (16): > > target-i386: cleanup 'foo' feature handling' > > target-i386: cleanup 'foo=val' feature handling > > Thanks, I've queued these on qom-cpu-next: > https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commits/qom-cpu-next > > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'level' to static property > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'xlevel' to static property > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'family' to static property > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'model' to static property > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'stepping' to static property > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'vendor' to static property > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'model-id' to static property > > target-i386: cpu: convert 'tsc-frequency' to static property > > But I still don't see the utility of this conversion after all the > discussions we've had... :( It seems there is movement to make DEVICE self describing for purpose of QAPI schema introspection, where static properties would be used (dynamic ones are not suitable for this purpose) > The below patches seem to only operate on > CPUID bits, which get added as properties in the following patch. > > > target-i386: set [+-]feature using static properties > > qdev: introduce qdev_prop_find_bit() > > target-i386: use static properties in check_features_against_host() to > > print CPUID feature names > > target-i386: use static properties to list CPUID features > > I am reading too many occurrences of "static properties" above that > should IMO just be "properties". You got permission to use a name-based > scheme to iterate over feat-* properties, so why are you still iterating > over static properties with a helper searching for offsets rather than > QOM properties with feat- prefix? Either we need that scheme for Ok, I'll use feat- prefix, there is not real need for iterating over array when listing properties. > automated processing as I understood you, then we should be consequent > in using it, or we don't. And I would prefer to keep these mappings in > x86 code rather than messing in generic device infrastructure and > iterating over *all* properties in your qdev_prop_find_bit() and making > generally available new QDEV_* macros QDEV_PROP_FOREACH() and > QDEV_CLASS_FOREACH(). Unfortunatly we still need mapping from bit position to name for kvm_check_features_against_host() So there is 2 options: 1st: keep iterating over array local to x86 2nd: drop name reporting in kvm_check_features_against_host() and report bit positions. which one would you preffer? > > The utility of the feat- prefix AIUI is to go from +foo to feat-foo=on; > going from bit position to name should work just as before and could > even be consolidated into a single array by using dynamic properties. I can't get you, Could you elaborate more on "consolidated into a single array by using dynamic properties." > Am I the only one that finds the approach backwards? o.O > > Regards, > Andreas > > > target-i386: remove unused *_feature_name arrays > > target-i386: cpu: fix invalid use of error_is_set(errp) if errp == > > NULL > > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg -- Regards, Igor
