On 28/10/20 16:39, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> I don't disagree with that, but it's a problem you have to solve anyway, >> isn't it? Once you figure out how to introspect QOM classes, that would >> apply just as well to character devices. > Yes, it's the problem I tried to address with my series, and Markus with > this alternative series. We need to do this either way.
Right, I appreciate that QOMifying chardev would only be a solution if QOM introspection gets into 6.0. This is why I only brought it up because neither of these series will be ready in time for 5.2. So maybe QOMifying chardev wouldn't make it a non-problem; it would make it someone else's (Eduardo's) problem. > you need to know what these properties should look like True that. But I think the existing QAPI structures do help for that. > If you don't wait for the QAPI work, you'll have solved the problem of > having two separate ways to describe chardev options by making it three > separate ways. Technically this might fulfill the condition of not > having two separate ways, but it's not really what we had in mind. :-) Actually four ways (-chardev, chardev-add, -object, object-add) but two of them would be implemented by the same code and qsd would be able to standardize on them. Paolo
