From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F38C433DB for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A47564E02 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:36:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9A47564E02 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:48494 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lEU7k-0004YD-NQ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:36:56 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51792) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lEU6p-0003eD-Vm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:35:59 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lEU6o-0005Rb-4E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:35:59 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12AFAC1D; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC v1 06/38] target/arm: split off cpu-softmmu.c To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= , Peter Maydell References: <20210221092449.7545-1-cfontana@suse.de> <20210221092449.7545-7-cfontana@suse.de> <87blcc57rj.fsf@linaro.org> <2765ff1d-8b77-c2c8-c48a-dc2f582d80ff@redhat.com> From: Claudio Fontana Message-ID: <477a7799-cb25-afa7-c280-09d839a2b180@suse.de> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:35:55 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2765ff1d-8b77-c2c8-c48a-dc2f582d80ff@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.135.220.15; envelope-from=cfontana@suse.de; helo=mx2.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Claudio Fontana , Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Roman Bolshakov , Paolo Bonzini , Eduardo Habkost Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 2/23/21 10:16 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 2/23/21 9:55 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> On 2/22/21 6:29 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> >>> Claudio Fontana writes: >>> >>>> From: Claudio Fontana >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana >>>> --- >>>> target/arm/internals.h | 9 ++- >>>> target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> target/arm/cpu.c | 95 --------------------------- >>>> target/arm/meson.build | 1 + >>>> 4 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c >>>> >>>> diff --git a/target/arm/internals.h b/target/arm/internals.h >>>> index 6384461177..6589b63ebc 100644 >>>> --- a/target/arm/internals.h >>>> +++ b/target/arm/internals.h >>>> @@ -1196,4 +1196,11 @@ static inline uint64_t useronly_maybe_clean_ptr(uint32_t desc, uint64_t ptr) >>>> return ptr; >>>> } >>>> >>>> -#endif >>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY >>>> +void arm_cpu_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq, int level); >>>> +void arm_cpu_kvm_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq, int level); >>>> +bool arm_cpu_virtio_is_big_endian(CPUState *cs); >>>> +uint64_t a15_l2ctlr_read(CPUARMState *env, const ARMCPRegInfo *ri); >>>> +#endif /* !CONFIG_USER_ONLY */ >>>> + >>>> +#endif /* TARGET_ARM_INTERNALS_H */ >>>> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c b/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000000..263d1fc588 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ >>>> +/* >>>> + * QEMU ARM CPU >>> >>> I guess apropos the discussion earlier it's really cpu-sysemu.c and we >>> could expand the header comment. >>> >>> QEMU ARM CPU - Helpers for system emulation and KVM only >>> >>> >>> >>> Otherwise: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée >>> >> >> Should I rename all *softmmu in the series to "sysemu"? >> >> I wonder if we should take the issue of sysemu/system/softmmu topic into a separate series. >> Currently basically starting from the build system already, "softmmu", sysemu and system are treated as a single thing, and the convention from build system and directories seems to be "softmmu", >> while from the header files we get "sysemu/". >> >> I agree that this is not a sufficient model to account for the new feature that Richard wants to develop, >> I just suggest we could also consider tackling this separately, with a pass through the whole code, gathering more input in the context of a dedicated series. >> >> What do you think? > > This is a valid reasoning. However I have my doubts "doing > that later" will ever be done/finished (not related to you > Claudio in particular, but with dealing with all subsystems). > > Personally I'd rather see this sorted out with the arm target > then once done propose it as an example to the other ones. > You already considered the most complex cases, x86 and arm :) Ok, if there are no other comments I would go with "sysemu", just because "system" is a bit too much of a loaded word, and we have the precedent of include/sysemu/ . > >> Also Paolo, any comments, since softmmu is all over meson? >> And Peter, any comments, preference? Ciao, Claudio