On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 02/09/2011 06:48 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >>> >>> ISASerialState dev; >>> >>> isa_serial_init(&dev, 0, 0x274, 0x07, NULL, NULL); >>> >> >> Do you mean that there should be a generic way of doing that, like >> sysbus_create_varargs() for qdev, or just add inline functions which >> hide qdev property setup? >> >> I still think that FDT should be used in the future. That would >> require that the properties can be set up mechanically, and I don't >> see how your proposal would help that. >> > > Yeah, I don't think that is a good idea anymore. I think this is part of > why we're having so many problems with qdev. > > While (most?) hardware hierarchies can be represented by device tree syntax, > not all valid device trees correspond to interface and/or useful hardware > hierarchies.
User creates a non-working machine and so gets to fix the problems? How is that a problem for us? > We want to have an interface to create large chunks of hardware (like an > i440fx) which then results in a significant portion of a device tree. But how would this affect interface to devices? I don't see how that would be any different with current model and the function call model.
