On 03/05/2014 07:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 05.03.2014 03:50, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: >> On 03/04/2014 01:55 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Prompted by Alexey's desire for tweakable PowerPCCPU properties but also by >>> Peter's wish for ARMCPU properties, this series sets out to align cpu_model >>> parsing across targets. >>> >>> QemuOpts would've been nice to use, but on the one hand x86 and sparc use >>> QemuOpts-incompatible +foo and -foo syntax (which accumulate rather than >>> apply >>> immediately) and on the other linux-user and bsd-user don't use QemuOpts at >>> all. >>> >>> The x86 implementation is closest to the proposed API, save for some >>> laziness. >>> SPARC is brought in line. And as fallback for the remaining targets a new >>> implementation, derived from x86 but supporting only key=value format, is >>> added. >>> >>> To facilitate using this infrastructure, a generic CPU init function is >>> created. >> >> >> Besides the fact that this patchset does not support dynamic properties >> (added by object_property_add(), and I used it in my initial patchset), > > Why would that be? I am using QOM object_property_parse() just like on > x86 where we do have a mix of static and dynamic properties. Maybe you > are using object_property_add() in the wrong place? It should be used in > the instance_init function of the CPU - be it PowerPCCPU or a derived > family/model - i.e. before cpu_ppc_init() returns. The same is necessary > to support -global.
cpu_ppc_init() calls cpu_generic_init() which does parsing before setting "realized" to "true". The only way to add a dynamic property here is to put object_property_add() in ppc_cpu_initfn() but it does not have CPU family hooks (unlike realizefn). Adding "compat" for every PPC CPU is ... wrong? Where I tried adding dynamic property before is init_proc_POWER7 (PowerPCCPUClass::init_proc) which is called from init_ppc_proc() which is called from ppc_cpu_realizefn() and this is too late. > >> that works for SPAPR, just need to implement property statically (tested). > > Thanks, > Andreas > -- Alexey
