* Markus Armbruster (armbru@redhat.com) wrote:
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> writes:
On 7/2/22 20:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:03, Mark Cave-Ayland
<mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk> wrote:
This displays detailed information about the device registers and timers to aid
debugging problems with timers and interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
---
hmp-commands-info.hx | 12 ++++++
hw/misc/mos6522.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 104 insertions(+)
I'm not sure how keen we are on adding new device-specific
HMP info commands, but it's not my area of expertise. Markus ?
HMP is David :)
Yes.
So let me start with an:
Acked-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
(If it's useful info for the author of the device, then I'm happy for
HMP to have that), but then - (moving the reply around a bit):
Should this be conditional on the targets where we actually link the
device, like info skeys?
Yes, I think so; it's a reasonably old/obscure device, there's no reason
everyone having it built in.
IIRC it is OK as long as HMP is a QMP wrapper.
That's "how to do it", and I'll get back to it in a jiffie, but Peter
was wondering about the "whether to do it".
Most HMP commands are always there.
We have a few specific to compile-time configurable features: TCG, VNC,
Spice, Slirp, Linux. Does not apply here.
We have a few specific to targets, such as dump-skeys and info skeys for
s390. Target-specific is not quite the same as device-specific.
We have no device-specific commands so far. However, dump-skeys and
info skeys appear to be about the skeys *device*, not the s390 target.
Perhaps any s390 target has such a device? I don't know. My point is
we already have device-specific commands, they're just masquerading as
target-specific commands.
Yeh we've got info lapic/ioapic as well.
The proposed device-specific command uses a mechanism originally made
for modules instead (more on that below).
I think we should make up our minds which way we want device-specific
commands done, then do *all* of them that way.
I think device specific commands make sense, but I think it would
probably be better if we had an 'info dev $name' and that a method on
the device rather than registering each one separately.
I'd assume that this would be a QMP level thing that got unwrapped at
HMP.
But that's not a problem for this contribution; someone else can figure
that out later.