On 18 October 2016 at 21:49, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 09:30:01PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> 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).
Most of the devices I deal with are not and never will be sensibly usable with -device. Exposing wiring up of IRQ and GPIO lines or MMIO regions to the user is never going to make sense. For x86 most devices are probably pluggable (and usable with -device), but over the whole source tree I think the embedded-style device is in the majority. They're all still worth QOMifying and having properties for the things board code wants to modify, though. thanks -- PMM
