On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 04:54:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/10/20 16:27, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >> It is always wrapped, but (as far as I recall, because I have never > >> worked with GPIOs) they are intentionally QOM properties and not just as > >> an implementation detail. It's meant to be accessible to the user if > >> only through qom-get/qom-set. > > > > Being accessible for debugging would be OK. I'm just worried > > about dynamic QOM properties being part of a stable and supported > > API. > > Certainly accessing the properties is only for debugging. > > However, I am not sure if the _existence_ of GPIOs as dynamic QOM > properties is part of the API; that is, whether the user has to specify > the names of these properties to create some devices. I don't think > that wouldn't be a problem anyway, what do you think?
Right now, I only want to know if the QOM property is part of a supported stable external interface. For the properties registered at realize time, the answer seems to be "no". Later, I might want to locate internal users of those QOM properties too, to be able to refactor the code if necessary. -- Eduardo