On 02/05/2020 06:47, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 30/04/2020 16:20, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>>>> Ah I see now, these aliases are for individual properties rather than
>>>> objects. What I
>>>> was trying to ask was if it were possible to have something like this:
>>>>
>>>> /machine (SS-5-machine)
>>>> /builtin
>>>> /nic0 -> link to "lance" device
>>>>
>>>> Here nic0 is an alias "published" by the maintainer of the SS-5 machine
>>>> which is
>>>> configured in the machine init() function using object_property_add_link()
>>>> or a
>>>> suitable wrapper. Users can then configure these builtin devices from the
>>>> command
>>>> line using your -machine nic0.netdev=my-netdev-id syntax or similar.
>>>
>>> Got it now, thanks!
>>>
>>>> Having the default devices under /builtin or other known QOM path would
>>>> enable
>>>> builtin devices to be easily enumerated programatically and/or from the
>>>> command line
>>>> as required.
>>>
>>> There are three standard containers under /machine/:
>>>
>>> * /machine/peripheral/
>>>
>>> Devices with a user-specified ID go here, as /machine/peripheral/ID.
>>> User-specified means -device or device_add.
>>>
>>> /machine/peripheral/ID is effectively a stable interface. It's just
>>> underdocumented (undocumented?).
>>>
>>> To be useful, the stuff below ID/ needed to be stable and documented,
>>> too.
>>>
>>> * /machine/peripheral-anon/
>>>
>>> Same, but user elected not to give an ID.
>>> /machine/peripheral-anon/device[N], where N counts up from zero in
>>> creation order.
>>>
>>> N is obviously not stable, but this is a problem of the user's making.
>>> If you want to refer to a device, give it an ID.
>>>
>>> * /machine/unattached/
>>>
>>> The orphanage. When a device has no parent when its realized, it gets
>>> put here, as /machine/unattached/device[N], where N counts up from
>>> zero in realization order.
>>>
>>> N is obviously not stable, and this time we can't blame the
>>> victim^Wuser. You can search for devices of a certain type.
>>> Sometimes that's good enough.
>>>
>>> All the onboard devices are here, and much more. We've fathered a lot
>>> of unloved red-headed children, it seems...
>>>
>>> Some of the "much more" is due to sloppy modelling, i.e. neglecting to
>>> set the proper parent.
>>>
>>> I figure we could put onboard devices in a nicer place, with nicer
>>> names. Need a convention for the place and the names, then make board
>>> code conform to it.
>>
>> That's good, it seems that this is already fairly close to how it works for
>> -device
>> at the moment.
>>
>> I don't think that it is possible to come up a single place for on-board
>> devices to
>> live directly though. Going back to one of my first examples: wiring up a
>> chardev to
>> a serial port on the macio device. To me it makes sense for that to exist in
>> QOM
>> under /machine/pci-bus/mac-io/escc. In contrast an in-built NIC could live
>> under
>> /machine/pci-bus/in-built/nic, and placing one or both of these devices
>> directly
>> under /machine/foo doesn't feel intuitive.
>
> I'm not familiar with this machine. You make me suspect the serial
> thingy is a component of a larger device.
>
> Properly modelled, a composite device has its components as children.
> These appear below their parent in the QOM composition tree.
>
> Example: a "serial-isa" device has a "serial" component. When the
> former is at /machine/unattached/device[28]/, the latter is at
> /machine/unattached/device[28]/serial/.
>
> I guess that's what you want for macio's serial port.
>
> Counter-example: a "isa-super-io" device has compoenents of type
> "isa-parallel", "isa-serial", "isa-fdc", "i8042", "isa-ide".
> Nevertheless, these appear next to their parent in /machine/unattached/.
> I'm still too much of a QOM ignoramus to explain why that's so. Paolo,
> can you?
FWIW the older machines have a lot of calls to qdev_create(NULL, TYPE_FOO) for
devices that are part of the machine because they live within the machine
address
space but are not specifically attached to a qbus.
>> AFAIK as per your ARM virt example I believe it is only possible to register
>> an alias
>> for a property rather than for an Object? The ultimate aim would be for
>> object_resolve_path("/machine/builtin/nic0") and
>> object_resolve_path("/machine/pci-bus/in-built/nic") to return the same
>> Object, and
>> for the aliases on built-in devices to be children of /machine/builtin to
>> allow easy
>> iteration and introspection.
>
> Paolo, could link properties achieve that?
>
> Mark, I guess you want the alias / link from builtin/nic0 to the actual
> place to simplify configuration: the user then needs to know less about
> the board. Correct?
Correct. In a perfect world I'd love to say that Daniel's suggestion to use QOM
paths
would work, however from my experience they change far too much. This is one of
the
reasons that the TYPE_FW_PATH_PROVIDER interface exists so that the generation
of
(boot) paths for the firmware is separate from the QOM/qdev paths.
I don't feel too strongly whether it's a link property, some kind of alias, or
perhaps like OpenFirmware just a string property containing the QOM path to the
device, since ultimately I imagine there would be wrapper functions for machine
init() to call which hide away the implementation details.
ATB,
Mark.
