On 13 July 2017 at 18:10, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > >> On 12 July 2017 at 12:22, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >>> >>>> In some situations it's useful to have a qdev property which doesn't >>>> automatically set its default value when qdev_property_add_static is >>>> called (for instance when the default value is not constant). >>>> >>>> Support this by adding a flag to the Property struct indicating >>>> whether to set the default value. This replaces the existing test >>>> for whether the PorpertyInfo set_default_value function pointer is >>> >>> PropertyInfo >>> >>>> NULL, and we set the .set_default field to true for all those cases >>>> of struct Property which use a PropertyInfo with a non-NULL >>>> set_default_value, so behaviour remains the same as before. >>>> >>>> We define two new macros DEFINE_PROP_SIGNED_NODEFAULT and >>>> DEFINE_PROP_UNSIGNED_NODEFAULT, to cover the most plausible use cases >>>> of wanting to set an integer property with no default value. >>> >>> Your text makes me wonder what is supposed to set the default value >>> then. Glancing ahead to PATCH 3, it looks like method instance_init() >>> is. Can you think of a scenario where something else sets it? >> >> OK, proposed extra paragraph for commit message: >> >> This gives us the semantics of: >> * if .set_default is true and .info->set_default_value is not NULL, >> then .defval is used as the the default value of the property > > If I read your patch correctly, then this should be "if .set_default is > true, then .info->set_default_value() must not be null, and .defval is > used ..."
Yes. thanks -- PMM
