From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45256 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGarA-0005bu-Oq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 12:50:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OGaqY-0005M3-Rk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 12:49:49 -0400
Received: from mail-pz0-f181.google.com ([209.85.222.181]:33642)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OGaqX-0005LW-Mj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 12:49:46 -0400
Received: by pzk11 with SMTP id 11so2041509pzk.28
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BFAAE22.5040900@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:49:38 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/6] Make hpet a compile time option
References: <cover.1274714215.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<4BFA9E8C.2070602@web.de>
	<m3hblxwawb.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<201005241732.46988.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <201005241732.46988.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>

On 05/24/2010 11:32 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
>> Notice that this patch was sent against hpet as one example, if we agree
>> that this "way" of disabling devices is ok, we could disable more
>> devices/have more flexibility.  Notice that in general, we (RHEL/KVM)
>> are interested in a small subset of qemu devices.
>>      
> IMO this patch is a backwards step.  The device models should be cleaned up so
> that you don't need to make a compile time decision.

I disagree.  I think the device model should be cleaned up so that no 
CONFIG_HPET is required in code but I think it's still useful to be able 
to exclude device models from the build.  That should just be a matter 
of not building the object though (that's the point of device_init()).

Regards,

Anthony LIguori

>    You'll notice that a
> fair amount of effort has been put into making the device/system code less
> tightly coupled and less machine specific.  All inter-device interaction and
> links should be explicit. Changing from "PC with HPET" and "PC without HPET"
> should not require recompiling anything, and devices shouldn't need to know or
> care which they're part of.
>
> Paul
>
>