Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:24, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Same question as for Hao Wu's series: Wouldn't the proper solution be to >> add a drive property to the machine type? >> >> If you can't use -blockdev, it's not done right. > > Is there an example of "doing it right" for built-in-to-the-machine > devices? > > (My experience with the new-style options is that almost > always they're designed for x86 where the device they're attached > to is also created on the command line, and then handling of boards > where the device is builtin is either an afterthought or forgotten. > See also -netdev, where it took forever for built-in-ethernet to > be usable.)
I'm afraid the situation for onboard block devices is far worse than it ever was for NICs. See my reply "On configuring onboard block devices with -blockdev" to Kevin's other message on the topic. To be fair, improving onboard device configuration is *hard*. Our general device configuration interface doesn't cover them, and we've so far failed finding a general solution. Without one, we're drowning in the sheer number of boards and onboard devices. Which is ever growing.
