Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 16 December 2013 08:48, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >>> I kind of think this whole thing is backwards anyway: >>> we should really say "the user can only instantiate >>> devices via command line or monitor that are specifically >>> intended to be hot-pluggable", rather than having an >>> enormous list of devices we flag as not instantiable >>> by the user. Even if someday we manage to make it technically >>> possible to instantiate an omap_i2c device (say) from the >>> command line, it will still be a completely bizarre thing to do >>> because it's only intended to work as a part of the omap SoC. >> >> "Hot-pluggable" doesn't apply here. There are plenty of devices that >> can only be cold-plugged, yet are absolutely meant to be user-pluggable. >> Real ISA cards, for instance. > > Mmm. Just plain "pluggable" would be more what I meant: > modelling something that on real hardware is really a > simple pluggable socket.
That makes sense to me. >> However, the current code lets users plug absolutely everything, even >> stuff that is known not to work. The code still has the remnants of a >> mechanism meant to protect users from known-not-to-work plugs, but it >> got broken some time ago. My "Clean up and fix no_user" series fixes >> that regression in a way that's hopefully agreeable with Anthony, who >> has been quite insistent on letting device_add plug more rather than >> less. This series merely patches some holes on top. >> >> The list of non-pluggable devices may be larger than the list of >> pluggable ones, but: I count just 48 instances of >> "cannot_instantiate_with_device_add_yet = true". I doubt marking >> devices that can be plugged instead of the ones than can't be would take >> fewer marks. Moreover, each one comes with a comment explaining *why* >> the device cannot be plugged. Sure nice to have when such a "why" goes >> away. Some of them are expected to go away eventually. > > I would expect 99% of actually pluggable devices to be pluggable > because they're using a pluggable bus: ISA, PCI, USB, ... > > Anyway, I don't actively object to this series. I just think > Anthony's going in the wrong direction which is why I haven't > been particularly eager to actively mark it as reviewed-by me > either... Understandable :) Thanks!
