Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > On 16/11/2020 18.00, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> On 16/11/2020 14.25, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> Hi Gan, >>>> >>>> On 11/15/20 7:49 PM, Gan Qixin wrote: >>>>> Some peripherals of bcm2835 cprman have no category, put them into the >>>>> 'misc' >>>>> category. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gan Qixin <ganqi...@huawei.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> Cc: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> hw/misc/bcm2835_cprman.c | 4 ++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/misc/bcm2835_cprman.c b/hw/misc/bcm2835_cprman.c >>>>> index 7e415a017c..c62958a99e 100644 >>>>> --- a/hw/misc/bcm2835_cprman.c >>>>> +++ b/hw/misc/bcm2835_cprman.c >>>>> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ static void pll_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void >>>>> *data) >>>>> >>>>> dc->reset = pll_reset; >>>>> dc->vmsd = &pll_vmstate; >>>>> + set_bit(DEVICE_CATEGORY_MISC, dc->categories); >>>> >>>> Well, this is not an usable device but a part of a bigger device, >>>> so here we want the opposite: not list this device in any category. >>>> >>>> Maybe we could add a DEVICE_CATEGORY_COMPOSITE for all such QOM >>>> types so management apps can filter them out? (And so we are sure >>>> all QOM is classified). >>>> >>>> Thomas, you already dealt with categorizing devices in the past, >>>> what do you think about this? Who else could help? Maybe add >>>> someone from libvirt in the thread? >>> >>> My 0.02 € : Mark the device as user_creatable = false if it can not really >>> be used by the user with the -device CLI parameter. Then it also does not >>> need a category. I know Markus will likely have a different opinion, but in >> >> You're hurting my feelings! ;-P >> >>> my eyes it's just ugly if we present devices to the users that they can not >>> use. >> >> If we believe a device should only ever be used from C, then we should >> keep it away from the UI. >> >> However, I'm wary of overloading user_creatable. Even though it has >> shifted shape a number of times (cannot_instantiate_with_device_add_yet, >> no_user, and now user_creatable), its purpose has always been focused: >> distinguishing devices that can be instantiated by generic code from the >> ones that need device-specific code. See user_creatable's comment in >> qdev-core.h. >> >> I don't want to lose that distinction. That's all. > > Well, currently we have the user_creatable flag and the hotpluggable flag. I > guess that's simply not enough. > > I think in the long run, we should maybe replace the two flags with a > "creatable" type instead that could take the following values: > > CREATABLE_AS_SUBDEVICE /* Device is part of another device and > can only by added by code */ > CREATABLE_BY_QOM /* Some fancy new QOM function can be > used to e.g. create this as part of > a machine */ > CREATABLE_BY_COLDPLUG /* For cold-plugging via -device */ > CREATABLE_BY_HOTPLUG /* For hot-plugging via device_add */
For hot-plug to actually work, both the plug / device and the socket / bus need to support it. CREATABLE_BY_HOTPLUG would be about the former. The latter could depend on bus or machine state. > ... but that's likely something for the distant future... The future arrives when the need for it overcomes inertia :) [...]
