Re: [PATCH] hw/intc/arm_gicv3: Simplify gicv3_class_name() logic

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 15:56, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Simplify gicv3_class_name() logic. No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
> ---
>  hw/intc/arm_gicv3_common.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_common.c b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_common.c
> index 2ebf880ead..8863f06b67 100644
> --- a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_common.c
> +++ b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_common.c
> @@ -612,13 +612,12 @@ type_init(register_types)
>
>  const char *gicv3_class_name(void)
>  {
> -    if (kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()) {
> -        return "kvm-arm-gicv3";
> -    } else {
> -        if (kvm_enabled()) {
> +    if (kvm_enabled()) {
> +        if (!kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()) {
>              error_report("Userspace GICv3 is not supported with KVM");
>              exit(1);
>          }
> -        return "arm-gicv3";
> +        return "kvm-arm-gicv3";
>      }
> +    return "arm-gicv3";
>  }

This doesn't seem to me to be obviously clearer or
simpler than the current code, which is the same basic
logic as the GICv2 gic_class_name(), but with the extra
condition of "report the error for the case we don't
support yet". In particular the major condition for
"should we be using kvm-arm-gicv3" is not "are we
using KVM?" but "are we using the KVM in-kernel irqchip?".

thanks
-- PMM