qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] hw/ide: Add the possibility to disable the CompactFlash devi


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/ide: Add the possibility to disable the CompactFlash device in the build
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:49:31 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 01/02/2024 13.39, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024, Thomas Huth wrote:
For distros like downstream RHEL, it would be helpful to allow to disable
the CompactFlash device. For making this possible, we need a separate
Kconfig switch for this device, and the code should reside in a separate
file.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
hw/ide/qdev-ide.h  | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/ide/cf.c        | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/ide/qdev.c      | 51 ++--------------------------------------
hw/ide/Kconfig     |  4 ++++
hw/ide/meson.build |  1 +
5 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/ide/qdev-ide.h
create mode 100644 hw/ide/cf.c

diff --git a/hw/ide/qdev-ide.h b/hw/ide/qdev-ide.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..3dd977466c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/hw/ide/qdev-ide.h

This may be unrelated to this patch but we already have include/hw/ide/internal.h which may be a place these should go in but that header is in inlcude because some files outside hw/ide include it. I've found three places that include ide/internal.h: hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c, hw/i386/pc.c and hw/misc/macio.h. Only macio is really needing internal IDE parts the other two just uses some functions so macio is probably the reason this wasn't cleaned up yet. In any case, maybe this could go in include/hw/ide/internal.h to avoid introducing a new header or somehow make this a local header where non-public parts of hw/ide/internal.h could be moved in the future. Such as rename include/hw/ide/internal.h to ide.h and name this one internal.h maybe?

I don't like headers that much that just collect a lot of only slightly related things. That only causes problems again when you have to unentangle the stuff one day. So what's wrong with having a dedicated header for the stuff in hw/ide/qdev.c ?

 Thomas




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]