On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 at 14:55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 31/10/23 15:05, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 20:38, Mark Cave-Ayland > >> <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 30/10/2023 11:48, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> Is it worth converting this to use DEFINE_TYPES() during the conversion? > >>> I know Phil > >>> has considered some automation to remove the type_init() boilerplate for > >>> the majority > >>> of cases. > >> > >> I could, I guess. It seems a bit awkward that DEFINE_TYPES() > >> wants you to pass it an array even when you only have one type, > >> though, which is going to be a very common use case. > > For single type, there is no point beside enforcing a QOM style. > > I'll update docs/devel/qom.rst...
I do like that the macro means you're not writing an actual function for the registration. We could I guess have a DEFINE_TYPE() macro that was similar to DEFINE_TYPES but emitted a function that called type_register_static() instead of type_register_static_array(). Is that worth having? I'm not sure. thanks -- PMM
