On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:26:20PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > 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.
Yeah, I've noticed that too, and I don't know why either.
It's pretty frustrating, since on power we don't have the option of
sticking with the old cpu hotplug interface for now. So I really have
no idea how to move things forwards towards a workable approach.
> > 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.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
