Am 23.02.2013 17:15, schrieb Andreas Färber: > Am 22.02.2013 16:21, schrieb Alexander Graf: >> After this patch set, the -cpu ? list is split into 2 segments. >> >> I would prefer if we could in the help output revert to the old behavior of >> only a single list ordered by PVR. Let me show you what I'm thinking of: >> >>> PowerPC 601_v1 PVR 00010001 >> [...] >>> PowerPC 740_v3.1 PVR 00080301 >> 740 (alias to "PowerPC 740_v3.1) >>> PowerPC 750cx_v1.0 PVR 00082100 > > How do you imagine this to be implemented then? Per ObjectClass walk the > aliases list for aliases that resolve to the same type?
Didn't come up with a more efficient implementation: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/222738/ Based on -cpu host refactoring patch, but feel free to reorder and squash. > What about "host" presentation? My patch just put it into a third > segment, we can easily drop the \n line though. > See also Jan's patch for x86 adding a description for "host". > A related question is whether to expose the aliases via QMP. That should > be easier to implement, similar to how aliases are handled right now. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/222740/ Feel free to apply, squash or drop. >> I also think the alias list should go into cpu-models.c. > > OK, becomes extern and typedef needs to go into header then. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/222744/ Based on the above. If you don't want the QMP patch, it should still apply minus the QMP hunk. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
