[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC v1 1/5] hw/s390x: only build qemu-tod from the CONFIG_TCG build
From: |
Claudio Fontana |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC v1 1/5] hw/s390x: only build qemu-tod from the CONFIG_TCG build |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:24:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 |
On 4/19/21 6:20 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:12:48 +0200
> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/21 11:11 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> Hi Cornelia,
>>>
>>> On 3/31/21 1:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100
>>>> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
>
>>>>> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
>>>>> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c',
>>>>> 'pv.c',
>>>>> ))
>>>>> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files(
>>>>> + 'tod-qemu.c',
>>>>
>>>> Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c?
>>>
>>> I think so.
>>
>> Here we are a bit limited though by the fact that the object is currently
>> called:
>>
>> include/hw/s390x/tod.h:26:#define TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-qemu"
>>
>> So there might be a compatibility issue in trying to make this consistent,
>> which would mean to replace this with:
>>
>> #define TYPE_TCG_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-tcg"
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> How visible is this? I don't think the TOD objects are instantiable by
> the user.
>
I just remember we were very conservative with the object hierarchy on x86,
personally I am fine with the change.
I will add this change then, I'd ask for people with concerns about this to
speak up:
(Paolo?)
Ciao,
CLaudio