Re: [PATCH 00/15] hw: expand DEFINE_MACHINE to explicit TypeInfo registration

[Yonggang Luo <luoyonggang@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 8:42 PM BALATON Zoltan <balaton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2026, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> > On 10/30/2026 4:09 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2026, Yonggang Luo wrote:
> >>> DEFINE_MACHINE and DEFINE_MACHINE_EXTENDED hide the TypeInfo and the
> >>> type_init
> >>> function that calls type_register_static(). A later change needs to
> >>> pass a
> >>
> >> That's the point of the macro to hide the boiler plate code.
> >>
> >>> target mask into that registration, and the macros have no parameter
> >>> for it.
> >>
> >> Couldn't you just change the macros to take that parameter instead of
> >> expanding it everywhere?
> >>
> >
> > Problem of macros is that they don't have default parameters, so you
> > need variants for everything:
> >
> > DEFINE_MACHINE
> > DEFINE_MACHINE_EXTENDED
> > DEFINE_MACHINE_WITH_INTERFACES
> > DEFINE_MACHINE_WITH_INTERFACE_ARRAY
> > and now would need a new variant, with variant for other existing ones.
> >
> > In the end, it's just simpler to remove this and add the boilerplate.
> > It's written once and never modified, so using a macro just save typing
> > those lines once.
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> BALATON Zoltan
> >>
> >>> This series expands every caller first, with no behavior change, so the
> >>> follow-up only replaces the type_register_static() call.
> >>>
> >>> Each machine file gains a class_init function, a TypeInfo, and a
> >>> type_init
> >>> function that calls type_register_static(). The last patch removes
> >>> DEFINE_MACHINE* and DEFINE_SECURE_MACHINE* from include/hw/core/boards.h.
>
> Macros help reading the code not saving typing. If the actual
> functionality is buried in a lot of boiler plate it's harder to understand
> and spot bugs so putting the unintresting boiler plate behind a macro is
> better even if you need a separate version for different cases. Then the
> code that uses the macro will be much more obvious and not just a lot of

I think mainly because DEFINE_MACHINE* and DEFINE_SECURE_MACHINE* are
not defined properly
that causes them to not be extended easily.

DEFINE_TYPES is another example, use them can extend easily, how about
always use DEFINE_TYPES?
Or add a DEFINE_TYPE to replace DEFINE_MACHINE* and DEFINE_SECURE_MACHINE*?


> boiler plate.
>
> Regards,
> BALATON Zoltan


--
         此致
礼
罗勇刚
Yours
    sincerely,
Yonggang Luo