From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54639) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gDXBy-0004wz-LB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:00:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gDXBs-00035r-25 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:00:02 -0400 References: <1539954845-26716-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <1539954845-26716-5-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <98df614b-e432-5a18-34f3-b2275ba9af93@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:59:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] configs: Add a CONFIG_UNIMP switch for the "unimplemented-device" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Thomas Huth Cc: QEMU Developers , qemu-arm , "Edgar E. Iglesias" , Richard Henderson , Alistair Francis , qemu-ppc , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= On 19/10/2018 16:43, Peter Maydell wrote: > I think if we want to support this for downstreams we need > to look at something better than the default-configs/ > mechanism for it. (Perhaps the kconfig-alike Paolo mentioned > in a previous thread?) True, but having more CONFIG_* symbols does not complicate the switch to a system like that one. > My dividing line for "should something go in a specific > architecture's default-configs/ list" is "is this an SoC > or real piece of hardware that is naturally limited to > one or a few SoCs". I tend to agree, but I'd rather have a separate CONFIG_* symbol as soon as two different *targets* (aka default-configs/*.mak files) use a device. So the SPARC change that you mention would actually be a good reason to introduce CONFIG_UNIMP, for example. Paolo