Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8

[Blue Swirl]

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> 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.