From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55274 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PdqYy-00013F-Er for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:48:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PdqYG-0003zN-95 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:47:18 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]:55592) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PdqYG-0003yr-03 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:47:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4D30B650.9020703@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:47:12 -0700 From: David Ahern MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/11] config: settings from default-configs need to be included in header files References: <1295032341-6926-1-git-send-email-daahern@cisco.com> <1295032341-6926-3-git-send-email-daahern@cisco.com> <4D30B10A.20302@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 01/14/11 13:31, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: >> >> >> On 01/14/11 13:17, Blue Swirl wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:12 PM, David Ahern wrote: >>>> Currently, device config settings in the default-configs file are not propogated into the config*.h files. While the Makefile rules observe them through the *.mak files, the CONFIG options are not usable within the .c files. >>>> >>>> This patch adds the settings to the header files. To do that the host devices make file is renamed to config-host-devices.mak and the target devices mak file to config-target-devices.mak. >>> >>> NACK, see this thread for the previous discussion: >>> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-05/msg02268.html >> >> hmm.... so there is no interest in making the existing design actually >> work? It's reinvent the config design or nothing? >> >> I'm looking to compile out all device models not relevant to my use case. > > That's OK, but the correct fix is to change the design of the machine > model to something more advanced where the unwanted objects are simply > not linked in, without any changes to board code. This is not so > trivial and also many devices are not architecturally clean yet. A lot of changes are need to obtain that goal, and I am not the right person to do them. Until that ideal design can be developed and implemented why not take a small patch that fixes the existing design? It's not a major change -- a very small one actually (4 files, 13 lines modified). David