On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:39:49PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 08/08/18 21:19, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> > For the older machines (such as Mac and SPARC) the DT nodes representing
> > bootdevices for disk nodes are irregular for mainly historical reasons.
> >
> > Since the majority of bootdevice nodes for these machines either do not
> > have a
> > separate disk node or require different (custom) names then it is much
> > easier
> > to disable all suffixes for a particular machine by setting the
> > ignore_suffixes
> > parameter to get_boot_devices_list() to true, and customise the disk nodes
> > as
> > required.
> >
> > Here we add a new bootdevice-ignore-suffixes property to the FW_CFG device
> > to
> > allow the generation of disk suffixes to be controlled on a per-machine
> > basis.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>
> > ---
> > hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > include/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
> > index b23e7f64a8..52488b999f 100644
> > --- a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
> > +++ b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
> > @@ -861,7 +861,8 @@ static void fw_cfg_machine_reset(void *opaque)
> > void *ptr;
> > size_t len;
> > FWCfgState *s = opaque;
> > - char *bootindex = get_boot_devices_list(&len, false);
> > + char *bootindex = get_boot_devices_list(&len,
> > + s->bootdevice_ignore_suffixes);
> >
> > ptr = fw_cfg_modify_file(s, "bootorder", (uint8_t *)bootindex, len);
> > g_free(ptr);
> > @@ -990,12 +991,18 @@ FWCfgState *fw_cfg_find(void)
> > return FW_CFG(object_resolve_path_type("", TYPE_FW_CFG, NULL));
> > }
> >
> > +static Property fw_cfg_properties[] = {
> > + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("bootdevice-ignore-suffixes", FWCfgState,
> > + bootdevice_ignore_suffixes, false),
> > + DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
> > +};
>
> I've got two questions which are not "loaded" -- I honestly have no clue:
>
> - Do we intend to expose this to users and higher-level tools? If not,
> should it be called "x-..." (experimental)? I can't remember the rules
> about "x-" properties.
That would be a good idea. But maybe we can skip using QOM to
address this, and go back to a MachineClass field (but this time
not fw_cfg-specific). See my other reply.
>
> - I vaguely recall that earlier we tried to add properties to the fw_cfg
> base class, but ultimately added them to the derived classes (see
> "fw_cfg_mem_properties" and "fw_cfg_io_properties"). Despite the fact
> that the referenced fields themselves (dma_enabled, file_slots) belong
> to the base class; IOW, the properties refer to "parent_obj.xxx". I
> don't really remember why we did this. I seem to recall issues
> otherwise, with setting the property from the command line due to object
> construction / realization order, or whatever.
Maybe it was a workaround to an old bug in compat_props handling.
I will try to find out.
>
> Mark, can you verify whether you can control
> "bootdevice-ignore-suffixes" from the command line, e.g. via "-global"?
>
> The object model keeps scaring me. :(
You're not alone. :(
--
Eduardo
