Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 15/18] rtc: add a dynamic property for retrieving the date

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 12/13/2011 03:48 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>    Hi,
>
>> Now I understand that for dynamically created properties (like on your
>> PCB) this is necessary and can't be avoided. For about 99% of the
>> devices static definition of properties would be enough, though.
>>
>> So basically what I'm asking for is getting the static structs back for
>> the 99% and have common code that parses them and calls the appropriate
>> functions to actually the properties. The remaining 1% that
>> creates/deletes properties during runtime and isn't covered can directly
>> call whatever it needs.
>
> Fully agree.  I guess we can even generate those structs in many cases.
>   We will parse the ${device}State structs anyway for visitor-based
> vmstate, so with some extra declaration we can generate property
> descriptions too.  For example this ...
>
> static PCIDeviceInfo intel_hda_info = {
>      .qdev.name    = "intel-hda",
>      [ ... ]
>      .qdev.props   = (Property[]) {
>          DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("debug", IntelHDAState, debug, 0),
>          DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("msi", IntelHDAState, msi, 1),
>          DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
>      }
> };
>
> ... could be just ...
>
> struct IntelHDAState {
>      [ ... ]
>      /* properties */
>      uint32_t debug __property(0);
>      uint32_t msi   __property(1);
> };


Yup, that's where I want to go.  In qom-next, I've started splitting header 
files out specifically so we can do stuff like this.  There's quite a bit of 
work to do before we can really start exploring here but I think it's not that 
much work to get the pc device models cleaned up such that we could run qc 
against the headers.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> cheers,
>    Gerd
>
>