Re: [Qemu-devel] List of files containing devices which have not been QOMified

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 7/11/18 0:06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 November 2018 at 19:16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 6/11/18 19:43, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>
>>> I had an idea for how to get a rough list of source files
>>> containing devices that haven't been QOMified. The theory
>>> is that a pre-QOM device generally has an "init" function
>>> which allocates memory for the device struct. So looking in
>>> hw/ for files which call g_new*() or g_malloc*() should get
>>> us all the non-QOM devices (as well as a pile of false
>>> positives, of course). The following link is the result of
>>> doing that and then eyeballing the results for false positives
>>> and throwing those out. It might have missed one or two
>>> files or included one or two by mistake. But I think it's
>>> pretty close, and it seems to have caught all the obvious
>>> ones I knew about. There are 61 files on this list.
>>>
>>> I am also suspicious about hw/bt/ but don't know enough
>>> about that subsystem to say if it could benefit from
>>> using QOM objects more.
>>>
>>
>>> hw/arm/exynos4210.c
>>
>> I already did this one.
>>
>>> hw/sd/omap_mmc.c
>> I will do this one.
> 
> I have some out-of-tree stuff that deals with this device
> (part of the omap3 patchset tries to do some QOMification,
> but it was a bit tangled with adding omap3 features),
> so if you could hold off on working on the various omap
> devices in this set that might be better, til I see
> whether any of the out-of-tree code is usefully salvageable.

Sure, go ahead with OMAP, this is the last thing I want to touch.

I wondered if there is sens to work on the OMAP devices then read your 
thought "I'm not sure what exactly (other than tidiness) we gain from 
converting remaining non-QOM devices."