On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:37:16PM +0800, arei.gong...@huawei.com wrote: > From: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com> > > Add a qom property with the same name 'bootindex', > when we remove it form qdev property, things will > continue to work just fine, and we can use qom features > which are not supported by qdev property. > > Signed-off-by: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com> > --- > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > index 78dcd68..0779d28 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > @@ -1454,9 +1454,14 @@ static void virtio_net_pci_class_init(ObjectClass > *klass, void *data) > static void virtio_net_pci_instance_init(Object *obj) > { > VirtIONetPCI *dev = VIRTIO_NET_PCI(obj); > - object_initialize(&dev->vdev, sizeof(dev->vdev), TYPE_VIRTIO_NET); > - object_property_add_child(obj, "virtio-backend", OBJECT(&dev->vdev), > NULL); > - object_unref(OBJECT(&dev->vdev)); > + VirtIONet *n = &dev->vdev; > + > + object_initialize(n, sizeof(dev->vdev), TYPE_VIRTIO_NET); > + object_property_add_child(obj, "virtio-backend", OBJECT(n), NULL); > + object_unref(OBJECT(n)); > + device_add_bootindex_property(obj, &n->nic_conf.bootindex, > + "bootindex", "/ethernet-phy@0", > + DEVICE(n), NULL);
Is anybody able to explain what would be the user-visible effects of simply using dev as the parameter to device_add_bootindex_property() and add_boot_device_path(), instead of dev->vdev? Don't they have exactly the same fw dev path? -- Eduardo