Re: [PATCH v4 13/19] hw/block/fdc-isa: Remove 'fallback' property

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:30:17AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 27/05/2025 19.20, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 12/05/2025 10.39, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > The "fallback" property was only used by the hw_compat_2_5[] array,
> > > as 'fallback=144'. We removed all machines using that array, lets
> > > remove ISA floppy drive 'fallback' property, manually setting the
> > > default value in isabus_fdc_realize().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >   hw/block/fdc-isa.c | 4 +---
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > FWIW, this needs a fixup for iotest 172:
> > 
> >   https://gitlab.com/thuth/qemu/-/jobs/10166450223#L466
> 
> FYI, since I was testing this series anyway, I'll fix up this patch with:
> 
> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/172.out b/tests/qemu-iotests/172.out
> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/172.out
> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/172.out
> @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@ Testing:
>              dma = 2 (0x2)
>              fdtypeA = "auto"
>              fdtypeB = "auto"
> -            fallback = "288"
>              bus: floppy-bus.0
>                type floppy-bus
>                dev: floppy, id ""
> @@ -43,7 +42,6 @@ Testing: -fda TEST_DIR/t.qcow2
>              dma = 2 (0x2)
>              fdtypeA = "auto"
>              fdtypeB = "auto"
> -            fallback = "288"
>              bus: floppy-bus.0
>                type floppy-bus
>                dev: floppy, id ""
> @@ -79,7 +77,6 @@ Testing: -fdb TEST_DIR/t.qcow2
>              dma = 2 (0x2)
>              fdtypeA = "auto"
>              fdtypeB = "auto"
> -            fallback = "288"
>              bus: floppy-bus.0
>                type floppy-bus
>                dev: floppy, id ""
> 
> etc.
> 
> and I will queue this series (without the "Remove X86CPU::check_cpuid field"
> patch as mentioned by Xiaoyao Li), unless Paolo or another x86 maintainer
> wants to do this instead (please let me know!).
> 
>  Thomas

No, pls go ahead.