[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/6] boot: extend get_boot_devices_list() to
From: |
Alexey Kardashevskiy |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/6] boot: extend get_boot_devices_list() to ignore suffixes |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:32:46 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 |
On 02/21/2014 01:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 20/02/2014 15:03, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> On 02/21/2014 12:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 20/02/2014 14:50, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>>>> As suffixes do not make sense for sPAPR's device tree and
>>>> there is no way to filter them out on the BusState::get_fw_dev_path
>>>> level, let's add an ability for the external caller to specify
>>>> whether to apply suffixes or not.
>>>>
>>>> We could handle suffixes in SLOF (ignore for now) but this would require
>>>> serious rework in the node opening code in SLOF which has no obvious
>>>> benefit for the currently emulated sPAPR machine.
>>>
>>> For the record, the commit message is not entirely correct in presenting
>>> the situation. QEMU *does not care in any way* of benefits for the
>>> currently emulated sPAPR machine. The benefit would be to QEMU in having
>>> simpler code.
>>>
>>> You just got a wildcard because Forth is scary. :)
>>
>> I know :) Should I remove that part and replace it with the "scary" one?
>
> No, unless you have to respin for other reasons (I hope not).
I am about to respin the series against the latest QOM stuff and I am about
to change commit message in the "The benefit would be to QEMU in having
simpler code" part - what part of QEMU gets simpler? I am avoiding fixing
SLOF and I am fixing QEMU so QEMU gets (liiiiittle) bit more complicated
but not simpler :) What do I miss?
--
Alexey
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/6] boot: extend get_boot_devices_list() to ignore suffixes,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <=