Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] qom/object: add available_if field to TypeInfo

Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.nongnu.qemu-devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 8/21/26 16:51, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> With the single-binary, we start mixing types for different targets,
> that may or may not be available for current one.
> 
> Previously, we implemented an approach based on interfaces, but it
> proved to be too limited. It requires duplication between
> machines/cpus/devices, and does not handle specific cases where a type
> should be available based on a target configuration (Kconfig).
> 
> To solve this, we add a new field, available_if, to TypeInfo.
> It is an array containing a list of requirements for type to be
> available.
> 
> For now, we have only targets as requirements, but later we'll add
> specific target config entries also.
> 
> We also add a TARGET_REQS macro, to declare a list of requirements. For
> sanity sake, we don't use a complex variadic macro prefixing each
> parameter. It requires a lot of macro boilerplate in C, and prevent
> readers to jump easily to definition for each parameter.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier<[email protected]>
> ---
>   include/qemu/target-info.h | 11 +++++++++++
>   include/qom/object.h       |  5 +++++
>   qom/object.c               | 10 ++++++++++
>   rust/qom/src/qom.rs        |  1 +
>   stubs/meson.build          |  1 +
>   stubs/target-info.c        | 11 +++++++++++
>   target-info.c              | 13 +++++++++++++
>   7 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 stubs/target-info.c
> 
> diff --git a/include/qemu/target-info.h b/include/qemu/target-info.h
> index 6c5b714288e..6379e65bbcf 100644
> --- a/include/qemu/target-info.h
> +++ b/include/qemu/target-info.h
> @@ -50,6 +50,17 @@ const char *target_cpu_type(void);
>    */
>   bool target_big_endian(void);
>   
> +typedef enum TargetReq {
> +    /* 0 is reserved for end of array */
> +    TARGET_REQ_BASE_ARM = 1,
> +    TARGET_REQ_AARCH64,
> +    TARGET_REQ_ARM,
> +} TargetReq;
> +

Is there a reason you're inventing Yet Another Enum, especially when target_base_arm etc 
are based on SysEmuTarget, which itself is used to create bitmasks of targets?


r~
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.