Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes: > On 02/07/2011 04:43 AM, Alon Levy wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:53:44AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: [...] >>> Okay, let's examine how your enumeration properties work. >>> >>> An enumeration property describes a uint32_t field of the state object. >>> Differences to ordinary properties defined with DEFINE_PROP_UINT32: >>> >>> * info is qdev_prop_enum instead of qdev_prop_uint32. Differences >>> between the two: >>> >>> - parse, print: symbolic names vs. numbers >>> >>> - name, print_options: only for -device DRIVER,\? (and name's use >>> there isn't particularly helpful) >>> >> Why do you say that? this is being used by libvirt to get the names of the >> supported backends for the ccid-card-emulated device. >> > > This is wrong. > > Libvirt should query this information through QMP.
"We should make this information readily available through QMP", you want to say ;) > This is my main > concern with enums. If there isn't a useful introspection interface, > libvirt is going to do dumb things like query help output. Beggars can't be choosers. > This has been a nightmare historically and I'm not inclined to repeat it. No argument, but we can hardly expect poor Alon to finish the QMP job just to get his usb-ccid device in. What would making him drop enum properties from his series accomplish? We'd get the same device with an inferior -device interface, which we then have to maintain compatibly.
