> From: Peter Crosthwaite [mailto:crosthwaitepe...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 29 January 2016 14:23 > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Andrew Baumann > <andrew.baum...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > Thanks for all the reviews. I should have a respun version on the list > > shortly. > There's one minor change to this last patch: > > > >> From: Peter Crosthwaite [mailto:crosthwaitepe...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2016 23:31 > >> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Baumann > <andrew.baum...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> > +typedef struct RaspiState { > >> > >> A quick google search, I see the camel case form for rpi is usually > >> "RasPi". Should we follow? > > > > Ok. > > > >> > + union { > >> > >> union not needed. > > > > I know it's not needed now, but it will be as soon as we add pi1, which I > hope to address in the next patch series. It will make that diff cleaner if we > keep this here now, so I'm going to leave it as-is. I hope that's ok with you. > > > > It sounds like you are implementing an inheritance outside QOM. I'm > not sure about this, can we just drop the union and figure it out on > the next series?
It's nothing nearly that clever/complicated. See https://github.com/0xabu/qemu/blob/raspi/hw/arm/raspi.c#L116 switch (version) { case 1: object_initialize(&s->soc.pi1, sizeof(s->soc.pi1), TYPE_BCM2835); break; case 2: object_initialize(&s->soc.pi2, sizeof(s->soc.pi2), TYPE_BCM2836); break; } And then later, we always refer simply to OBJECT(&s->soc). I suppose I could use a generic Object pointer instead, and allocate the soc-specific type elsewhere, but it seemed simpler with the union. Andrew
