On 20 January 2015 at 15:59, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:34:23 +0000 > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 20 January 2015 at 15:22, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Please do not use legacy +-feature format and support only foo=val format. >> > Other targets have it only for to being able support legacy setups >> > which use +- format. >> >> I thought this was the standard format for CPU features. Do you >> have an example of a CPU feature being set using foo=val format? > Currently on x86 we can use either legacy +foo1,-foo2,foo3 and > in addition to it we ca use canonized format for generic properties > like, foo1=on,foo2=off,foo3=on > > We try to move out of legacy format, so that it would be possible > to reuse generic property parsing infrastructure like with any > device object. That would allow to use -device/device_add for CPUs.
-device/-device_add for CPUs is pretty fraught in the general case because there's no obvious place to plug them and have them be wired up properly. You'd need to use -global for CPU properties, which is a nightmare... Anyway, I'm not particularly attached to the exact command line syntax we've used here -- I was just looking for "we have a CPU property, and use the same syntax for specifying CPU feature enable/disable that other CPUs do"... -- PMM
