On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:08:09 +0000 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> 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. That depends on CPU of-cause, but we are close to having device_add working with x86 CPUs. > You'd need to use -global for CPU > properties, which is a nightmare... mine thoughts on it were that '-cpu type,feat...' would eventually do conversion of features to global properties transparently for user using target specific cc->parse_features() callback. Which Greg could actually do here. We would happy to reuse it with x86 CPUs. > > 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"... Then '-cpu arm_foo,featX=on/off' should do the job. > > -- PMM
