Re: sysbus_create_simple Vs qdev_create

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 28/07/20 09:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> the composition tree generally mirrors things that are born and die
>> at the same time, and creating children is generally reserved to the
>> object itself.
>
> Yes.  Notable exceptions: containers /machine/peripheral,
> /machine/peripheral-anon, /machine/unattached.

And /objects too.  Apart from /machine/unattached, all these dynamic
objects are created by the monitor or the command line.

>>                 Children are usually embedded directly in a struct, for
>> example.
> 
> We sometimes use object_new() + object_property_add_child() instead.
> Extra indirection.  I guess we'd be better off without the extra
> indirection most of the time.  Implementation detail.
> 
> We sometimes use object_new() without object_property_add_child(), and
> have qdev_realize() put the device in the /machine/unattached orphanage.
> Meh.  I guess the orphanage feature exists to make conversion to QOM
> slightly easier.  Could we ban its use for new boards at least?

Banning perhaps is too strong, but yes /machine/unattached is an
anti-pattern.

>> 3) accessing the QOM graph is slow (it requires hash table lookups,
>> string comparisons and all that), so the pointers that cache the
>> parent-child links are needed for use in hot paths.
> 
> True, but only because QOM's design opts for generality, efficiency be
> damned :)

Remember that QOM's essential feature is the visitors: unlike GObject,
QOM is not targeted at programming languages but rather at CLI and RPC.

> I never quite understood why we need to build properties at run time.

I think it was (for once) Anthony reasoning that good is better than
perfect.  You do need run-time properties for /machine/unattached,
/machine/peripheral, etc., so he decided to only have run-time
properties.  Introspection wasn't considered a primary design goal.

Also, even though child properties are quite often the same for all
objects after initialization (and possibly realization) is complete,
this does not cover in two cases:

1) before the corresponding objects are created---so static child
properties would only be possible if creation of all children is moved
to instance_init, which is guaranteed not to fail.

2) there are cases in which a property (e.g. an int) governs how many of
those children exist, so you cannot create all children in instance_init.

Paolo

> It's makes reasoning about properties harder, and introspection brittle.