On 19 December 2013 13:49, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> My initial thought would be either to have if statements at the >> relevant points (which is how we've handled 11mpcore >> differences so far), or to bite the bullet and reflect the >> difference in the QOM class structure so we can use >> QOM methods [ie function pointers in the class struct]. >> > > Even in the "if" approach its probably best to put the "is-11mpcore" > or "version" property in the class structure. So I think you want the > QOM class structure both ways.
We have precedent elsewhere for having a "revision" property in the object struct rather than having subclasses per class, don't we? (arm_gic already has such a property, it's the 'revision' field.) Properties can't go in the class struct because by definition they can be set per-instance by the creator of the object. thanks -- PMM
