Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/6] machine: Convert the valid cpu types to use cpu_model

[Igor Mammedov]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:27:00 -0300
Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 05:33:43PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:15:21 +0200
> > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:  
> [...]
> > > Yes. Eduardo and you should write some lines to explain this, and then
> > > we will follow :)  
> > Unfortunately I don't recall details anymore. One could check out all
> > implementations of class_by_name callbacks to find out current state.  
> 
> See this message for a summary of existing class_by_name quirks:
> 
>   https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg615503.html
>   Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 10:34:44 +0200
>   Message-ID: <address@hidden>
>   Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Delete 16 *_cpu_class_by_name() 
> functions
> 
> I'm unsure about Igor's suggestion to get rid of CPU model names
> and use only QOM type names in external interfaces.  In either
> case, we can still simplify the rules rules and reduce the amount
> of arch-specific code.
as far as we have cpu_class_by_name, we have to watch over that
new patches/targets won't add some custom handling/fallbac/whatnot.

On contrary -device works just with type names for all devices,
applying the same to -cpu which is basically translator
   model->type[,-global type.foo,...]
would be consistent with -device and less confusing for everyone
(not counting significant code reduction).
It would certainly simplify contributing new targets as contributor
won't have to care about cpu model naming and do something about it.

This option wasn't considered before because we didn't have deprecation
back then, but now it opens possibility to simplify qemu and consolidate
naming. (we probably would be able to fold '-cpu help' into '-device help'
as well).