On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > On 21.11.2010, at 13:37, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>> So far we have C preprocessor defines for target and host config >>> options, but we're lacking any information on which devices are >>> available. >>> >>> We do need that information at times though, for example in the >>> ahci patch where we need to call a legacy init function depending >>> on whether we have support compiled in or not. >> >> That does not seem right. Devices should not care about what other >> devices may exist. Perhaps stub style approach would be better. > > Well, for the -drive parameter we need to know what devices we can create and > I'd like to keep that code as close as possible to the actual device code. > > So the stub alternative would be to create a stub .c file for each device > that could get created during -drive. I'm not sure that is a good idea :). > > Another alternative would be to move the instantiation code to somewhere > generic. But that sounds rather ugly to me. > > Also, devices really shouldn't care about other devices' availability. > Machine descriptions should care, and that's what this patch is there for :).
Then only machine descriptions should include config-devices.h.
