On 10.12.2010, at 13:37, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> writes: > >> On 21.11.2010, at 13:37, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> So far we have C preprocessor defines for target and host config >>>> options, but we're lacking any information on which devices are >>>> available. >>>> >>>> We do need that information at times though, for example in the >>>> ahci patch where we need to call a legacy init function depending >>>> on whether we have support compiled in or not. >>> >>> That does not seem right. Devices should not care about what other >>> devices may exist. Perhaps stub style approach would be better. >> >> Well, for the -drive parameter we need to know what devices we can create >> and I'd like to keep that code as close as possible to the actual device >> code. > > Stupid question: why can't we just try to create, then check status to > figure out whether it failed because the device isn't available?
That's what the later version of this patch that in between is ripped out of the patch set did :) Alex
