[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/10] hw/arm hw/xtensa: De-duplica

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/10] hw/arm hw/xtensa: De-duplicate pflash creation code some
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:01:37 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Max Filippov <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:07 AM Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
>> pflash_cfi01_register() creates a TYPE_CFI_PFLASH01 device, sets
>> properties, realizes, and wires up.
>> We have three modified copies of it, because their users need to set
>> additional properties, or have the wiring done differently.
>> Factor out their common part into pflash_cfi01_create().
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/arm/vexpress.c        | 22 +++++-----------------
>>  hw/arm/virt.c            | 26 +++++++++-----------------
>>  hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c  | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>  hw/xtensa/xtfpga.c       | 18 +++++++-----------
> I was told that it's better this way when I did that initially:
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg06927.html
> Has the idea of "better" changed since then?
> I'm fine with the code either way, just curious.

I'm not sure about our collective idea of "better".  I simply saw a
helper function duplicated with minor variations because it fails to
capture what's truly common, so I fixed that.

If we think helper functions capturing device creation and property
setting are bad, and open coding would be better. then we should get rid
of pflash_cfi01_register() and pflash_cfi02_register() everywhere, not
just avoid it in these three places.

Cc'ing the usual QOM suspects for guidance.

reply via email to

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