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

[BALATON Zoltan <balaton@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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 
boiler plate.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan