On 11/24/18 2:19 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 18:16, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
I think this is good enough for now (as long as there's a comment
like Peter suggested). Allowing parent_realize to be NULL would
be inconvenient to all code that uses parent_realize today.
It was done in v2, please review.
Personally, I would love to get rid of parent_realize entirely.
We could simply provide a helper to let device subclasses call
the parent's realize function without the need to copy function
pointers around.
well, I will do it later.
Agreed -- parent_realize is a hack that is working around
a deficiency in our object model, and it would be nice to
deal with that. But let's do our cleanups one at a time :-)
OK, I see.
Thanks,
Mao
thanks
-- PMM
