On 9/30/26 14:16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 30/9/26 13:50, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
Note to Peter: I really think keeping duplicating the
UnimplementedDeviceConfig structure is a basic software
development antipattern. Could you reconsider your objection?
What's the background ?
I think that was discussed on IRC, the only ref on the list is:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/cafeaca_ob6mhqfaam9iamae5vfxayhmcqkk-gjh+s1mhuvf...@mail.gmail.com/
create_unimplemented_device() calls qdev_create() and allocate on the
heap, my motivation was to have another helper for in-place init (when
the UnimplementedDeviceState state is embedded in the parent). Now we
ended with such helpers like aspeed_mmio_map_unimplemented() which
realize in place, make_unimp_dev() and create_unimp() init and realize
in place and Jamin adds yet another pattern. While all are valids,
I'd rather unify.
Could an array such as :
static const AspeedUnimpDevice aspeed_soc_ast2700_unimp_devs[] = {
{ "dpmcu", "aspeed.dpmcu", ASPEED_DEV_DPMCU, 0x00040000 },
{ "iomem", "aspeed.io", ASPEED_DEV_IOMEM, 0x00FE0000 },
{ "iomem0", "aspeed.iomem0", ASPEED_DEV_IOMEM0, 0x01000000 },
{ "iomem1", "aspeed.iomem1", ASPEED_DEV_IOMEM1, 0x01000000 },
};
be defined at the class level of the SoC and handled automatically ?
I guess would need some kind on common SoC model in that case.
C.
