On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:46:45AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:54:32 +1100 > David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: [...] > > This is why Eduardo suggested - and I agreed - that it's probably > > better to implement the "1st layer" as an internal structure/interface > > only, and implement the 2nd layer on top of that. When/if we need to > > we can revisit a user-accessible interface to the 1st layer. > We are going around QOM based CPU introspecting interface for > years now and that's exactly what 2nd layer is, just another > implementation. I've just lost hope in this approach. > > What I'm suggesting in this RFC is to forget controversial > QOM approach for now and use -device/device_add + QMP introspection,
You have a point about it looking controversial, but I would like to understand why exactly it is controversial. Discussions seem to get stuck every single time we try to do something useful with the QOM tree, and I don't undertsand why. > i.e. completely split interface from how boards internally implement > CPU hotplug. A QOM-based interface may still split the interface from how boards internally implement CPU hotplug. They don't need to affect the device tree of the machine, we just need to create QOM objects or links at predictable paths, that implement certain interfaces. -- Eduardo
