Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 07/12/2015 09:50, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> The device is obviously useful. However, there is dissent on how it >> ought to be modelled. The modelling is visible at the -device user >> interface. By making the device available there in 2.5, we commit to >> the current modelling's user interface before we reach consensus on how >> it ought to be modelled. Options: >> >> (1) Make device "sdhci-pci" unavailable with -device until we reach >> consensus. This is what we normally do. Trivial patch is on list. >> >> (2) Mark the properties that belong to the card rather than the >> controller as experimental until we reach consensus, by prefixing >> their name with "x-". Needs a patch. >> >> (3) Keep it available, commit to the user interface, deal with the >> consequences if and when they arise. >> >> I think (1) is the most prudent, but (2) should work, too. Having dealt >> with consequences of prior modelling mistakes, I dislike 3. > > There have been 10 commits in 2 years to sd.c, none of them getting a > step closer to qdev-ification basically. So there's no interest, which > is basically explained by the fact that quite frankly SDIO is dead.
There hasn't been progress towards qdevification because we've offered neither sticks nor carrots to the donkeys who're supposed to do the donkey-work. > I don't see any real difference between sdhci-pci and pci-serial. The difference is dissent vs. consensus. I don't have a strong opinion myself, but Peter C. seems to have. I suppose we could find rough consensus, but finding it under duress of a release isn't how we normally do it. Option (2) would make the device available for testing in 2.5 without breaking off the debate before consensus is reached or it becomes clear it cannot be reached.
