On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 09:30:01PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 October 2016 at 19:45, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 07:12:51PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> We actually have a concrete instance in the tree at the moment: > >> the raspberry pi 2. Specifically hw/arm/bcm2836.c sets the > >> mp_affinity for each cpu to 0xF00 | n (where n is the CPUID). > >> Currently it's doing that by reaching in and messing with > >> the mp_affinity field directly, but really it ought to be > >> doing it by setting a property on the CPU, and what it > >> wants isn't somethnig that can be expressed with a simple > >> nr_sockets/nr_cores/etc scheme. > > > > I am confused now. I thought QOM properties were meant for > > user-visible and/or user-configurable data. I assumed that if > > it's only meant to be used by C code inside QEMU, C functions > > and/or C struct fields were the way to go. > > Lots of stuff in a device's C struct is strictly internal > and not to be messed with. I thought that QOM properties > were essentially how a device defined its public (and > typically settable-only-once) config knobs. QOM properties > shouldn't be user-facing (read: stable, required to be > backwards-compatible) interface in general because > we don't really want to tie ourselves down that much. > In fact almost all our QOM objects are not usefully > user-facing at all.
This interpretation surprises me, because it is the opposite of what I have seen us doing. Most of our QOM objects and properties are user-visible and user-configurable using -global, -device, -object, or qom-set (and probably other QMP commands). Some QOM properties are internal and we have been using the "x-" prefix to indicate that, but most of them do _not_ have the "x-" prefix. -- Eduardo
