On 02/21/2014 01:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/02/2014 15:03, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: >> On 02/21/2014 12:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> Il 20/02/2014 14:50, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: >>>> As suffixes do not make sense for sPAPR's device tree and >>>> there is no way to filter them out on the BusState::get_fw_dev_path >>>> level, let's add an ability for the external caller to specify >>>> whether to apply suffixes or not. >>>> >>>> We could handle suffixes in SLOF (ignore for now) but this would require >>>> serious rework in the node opening code in SLOF which has no obvious >>>> benefit for the currently emulated sPAPR machine. >>> >>> For the record, the commit message is not entirely correct in presenting >>> the situation. QEMU *does not care in any way* of benefits for the >>> currently emulated sPAPR machine. The benefit would be to QEMU in having >>> simpler code. >>> >>> You just got a wildcard because Forth is scary. :) >> >> I know :) Should I remove that part and replace it with the "scary" one? > > No, unless you have to respin for other reasons (I hope not).
I am about to respin the series against the latest QOM stuff and I am about to change commit message in the "The benefit would be to QEMU in having simpler code" part - what part of QEMU gets simpler? I am avoiding fixing SLOF and I am fixing QEMU so QEMU gets (liiiiittle) bit more complicated but not simpler :) What do I miss? -- Alexey
