* Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@linaro.org) wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 15:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
* Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@linaro.org) wrote:
I think on balance I would go for: * remove (ie deprecate-and-drop) 'singlestep' from the QMP struct, rather than merely renaming it * if anybody comes along and says they want to do this via QMP, implement Paolo's idea of putting the accelerator object somewhere they can get at it and use qom-get/qom-set on it [My guess is this is very unlikely: nobody's complained so far that QMP doesn't permit setting 'singlestep'; and wanting read without write seems even more marginal.] * keep the HMP commands, but have both read and write directly talk to the accel object. I favour splitting the 'read' part out into its own 'info one-insn-per-tb', for consistency (then 'info status' matches the QMP query-status)
If it's pretty obscure, then the qom-set/get is fine; as long as there is a way to do it, then just make sure in the commit message you say what the replacement command is
The point is that there isn't a replacement way to do it *right now*, but that we have a sketch of how we'd do it if anybody showed up and really cared about it. I think the chances of that happening are quite close to zero, so I don't want to do the work to actually implement the mechanism on spec...
Sure, then just drop it. Dave
-- PMM
-- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK