From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MnEGL-0002ox-VY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:18:46 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MnEGL-0002nf-6V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:18:45 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44538 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MnEGL-0002nO-1h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:18:45 -0400 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.146]:64955) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MnEGK-0003l9-N3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:18:44 -0400 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 26so453238eyw.2 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090914091545.GA21160@edde.se.axis.com> References: <37d5a3ce941bc89f6d73b8e7bf746952a0074da2.1252699478.git.armbru@redhat.com> <20090912101009.GC16110@laped.iglesias.mooo.com> <4AAE0575.8060607@redhat.com> <20090914091545.GA21160@edde.se.axis.com> From: Blue Swirl Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:18:23 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/6] Move function definitions out of xilinx.h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Edgar E. Iglesias" Cc: Markus Armbruster , Paul Brook , Gerd Hoffmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:57:25AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> On 09/12/09 12:10, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:04:17AM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Markus Armbruster >>>> wrote: >>>>> xilinx.h defines a couple of static inline functions for creating >>>>> devices. =C2=A0While that's a fair technique for hot functions, devic= e >>>>> initialization is about as cold as it gets. =C2=A0Define them in the = device >>>>> source files instead, and keep only declarations in the header. >>>> >>>> If I understood the qdev plan correctly, this is going to wrong >>>> direction. These functions should reside near the instantiation, not >>>> in the device code. The current approach looks OK if there are going >>>> to be more users of the devices. >> >> The functions should go away ;) >> >> Some day the information carried by those code snippeds should come from= a >> machine description file, then we'll don't need them any more. > > I agree. > >> >>> I agree that they shouldn't be in the device source. >>> The reason they ended up in a header and not with the petalogix board >>> was that in my tree there are multiple boards using these functions >>> to easy instantiate devices. >> >> They have to be somewhere. =C2=A0Having them in a header file is unclean= . Having >> them in the board-specific code isn't practical when multiple boards sha= re >> the code. =C2=A0I'd stick them to the device source code as well. =C2=A0= Also note >> that this is common practice elsewhere in the tree. > > I disagree. > > But if ppl feel very strongly about this, I can remove them and deal with > the code duplication in my tree. Afterall, it's unlikely that upsteam > qemu gets more xilinx boards before some kind of device tree driven > board support is there. I also disagree. Why would the functions in a header file be unclean? The common practice is wrong.