On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 at 16:53, Mohamed Mediouni <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 27. Oct 2025, at 17:03, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I guess that would be an argument for the "give the property > > the right name so we can say "msi=(off,its,gicv2m,auto)". Then > > you could say > > -accel tcg -machine gic-version=3,msi=gicv2m > > > > to test that setup. > > Is there guidance around renaming properties?
I'm not sure if there is. So the below is just my initial suggestion. > Would it be proper to do: > - if its=auto, consider the new msi property > - otherwise, use the its property I think we should write the code in a way that looks ahead to marking the its property as deprecated and eventually removing it. So the handling for the new "msi" property should be done in a way that doesn't need changes if/when we drop the "its" property. We don't currently attempt to detect oddball user commandlines like "-M virt,its=on,its=off", so I don't think we need to go to any particular effort to diagnose the equivalently odd "-M virt,its=on,msi=off" etc. We can implement the two options as essentially independent, where "its=on" is equivalent to "msi=auto" and "its=off" is equivalent to "msi=off" (i.e. what we currently have as a bool turns into an enum, and the set/get functions for "its" and "msi" both operate on the same underlying struct field.) thanks -- PMM
