On Aug 25, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > You're proposing to revise a qdev design decision, namely the purpose of > IDs. This has been discussed before, and IDs remained unchanged. > Perhaps it's time to revisit this issue. Cc'ing a few more people. > > Relevant prior threads: > * [PATCH] qdev: Reject duplicate and anti-social device IDs > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/71230/focus=72272 > * [PATCH 6/6] qdev: Generate IDs for anonymous devices > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/114853/focus=114858 > * [PATCH] qdev: Assign a default device ID when none is provided. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/249702 > * IDs in QOM (was: [PATCH] util: Emancipate id_wellformed() from QemuOpt > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/299945/focus=300381 >
After reading all the threads, I realize why all the attempts to accept a device ID patch failed. It is because it was assumed everyone would agree on one patch to accept. This is very unlikely. It would take someone in a leadership position to decide which patch should be accepted. From one of the threads above, I saw Anthony Liguori participate. He was in the perfect position to make the choice. The person who is in his position now is Peter Maydell. Maybe we should just ask him to look at all the candidate patches and have him pick one to use.
