On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 14:16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2/13/20 2:59 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > The natural way to implement this is to have the .class_data > > be a pointer to a struct which is in an array and defines > > relevant per-class stuff, the same way we do in > > bcm2836_register_types(). That way the struct can indicate > > both the board revision number and also "is this a legacy > > board that needs transaction-failures disabled?". > > IIUC Igor insists explaining that he doesn't accept anymore a > ".class_data pointer to a struct which is in an array and defines > relevant per-class stuff" and we should not use this pattern anymore.
Huh? How else would you do this? I'm kinda dubious about the pattern this patch series uses of just stuffing a 32-bit board ID number into the class_data field, to be honest -- I let that pass partly not to hold up the series but partly because I expect that we'll need to turn it back into a proper pointer to a data struct soonish. thnaks -- PMM
