From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52758)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RumrW-0002sw-H7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:21:50 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RumrV-0008To-05
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:21:42 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28214)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RumrU-0008Ta-P8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:21:40 -0500
Message-ID: <4F31417F.2000102@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:21:35 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87ehu7pxvf.fsf@elfo.elfo> <4F312AFC.6020908@suse.de>
	<4F312C8A.9080700@redhat.com> <4F313BA8.9070601@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4F313BA8.9070601@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesday 7
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: quintela@redhat.com, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>, KVM devel mailing list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Developers qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 02/07/2012 03:56 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Another related question is, should the 4th QOM series present a full
>> composition tree based on the legacy qdev bus concept?
>
> Composition, no. The legacy qbus concept doesn't model composition
> because it puts children created by composition (like the Cirrus VGA
> adapter) in the same context as a device created by a user (like an
> e1000 network card).
>
>> Currently it doesn't, but
>> if not, why not? That would help _a lot_ with removing PROP_PTR.
>
> One thing that we could do, is modify qdev_create() like:
>
> DeviceState *qdev_create_with_name(BusState *bus, const char *typename,
> const char *name)
> {
> // ...
> object_property_add_child(legacy_machine_root(), name, OBJECT(dev), &err);
> // assert if err due to conflicting property names
> }
>
> DeviceState *qdev_create(BusState *bus, const char *typename)
> {
> return qdev_create_with_name(bus, typename, typename);
> }
>
> Most devices only have a single instance.   In the cases where there are
> multiple instances, we'll have to fix it up manually but that really
> shouldn't be all that hard.

I'm wary of all plans that require to go through all the code once. 
What about simply /devices/default/child[...] or something like that?

BTW, I would like to change /i440fx to /devices/i440fx, so that we will 
have clean namespaces:

/block
     ...
/chardev
     ...
/clocks
     ...
/devices
     /peripheral
         ...                 # named devices created with -device
     /peripheral-anon
         /child[...]         # unnamed devices created with -device
     /default
         /child[...]         # created with qdev_create

Paolo