Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v3 10/24] target-ppc: Introduce and reuse generalized init_proc_POWER()

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 05/28/2014 10:36 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 28.05.14 02:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 05/28/2014 10:07 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 27.05.14 12:37, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>> At the moment every POWER CPU family has its own init_proc_POWERX
>>>> function.
>>>> E500 already has common init function so we try to do the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> This introduces BOOK3S_CPU_TYPE enum with 2 values - 970 and POWER5+.
>>>>
>>>> This introduces generalized init_proc_POWER() which accepts a CPU type
>>>> as a parameter.
>>>>
>>>> This uses new init function for 970 and POWER5+ CPU classes.
>>>>
>>>> 970 and POWER5+ use the same CPU class initialization except 3 things:
>>>> 1. logical partitioning is controlled by LPCR (POWER5+) and HID4 (970)
>>>> SPRs;
>>>> 2. 970 does not have EAR (External Access Register) SPR and PowerISA 2.03
>>>> defines one so keep it only for POWER5+;
>>>> 3. POWER5+ does not have ALTIVEC so insns_flags does not have PPC_ALTIVEC
>>>> flag set and gen_spr_book3s_altivec() won't init ALTIVEC for POWER5+.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>    target-ppc/translate_init.c | 85
>>>> ++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>>>>    1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>>> index 7662730..5556b02 100644
>>>> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>>> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>>> @@ -7273,6 +7273,11 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(e600)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>>>    #define POWERPC970_HID5_INIT 0x00000000
>>>>    #endif
>>>>    +enum BOOK3S_CPU_TYPE {
>>>> +    BOOK3S_CPU_970,
>>>> +    BOOK3S_CPU_POWER5PLUS,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>>    static int check_pow_970 (CPUPPCState *env)
>>>>    {
>>>>        if (env->spr[SPR_HID0] & 0x01C00000) {
>>>> @@ -7474,6 +7479,15 @@ static void
>>>> gen_spr_book3s_external_control(CPUPPCState *env)
>>>>                     0x00000000);
>>>>    }
>>>>    +static void gen_spr_book3s_lpar(CPUPPCState *env)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    /* Logical partitionning */
>>>> +    spr_register_kvm(env, SPR_LPCR, "LPCR",
>>>> +                     SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>>> +                     &spr_read_generic, &spr_write_generic,
>>>> +                     KVM_REG_PPC_LPCR, 0x00000000);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    static void gen_spr_970_lpar(CPUPPCState *env)
>>>>    {
>>>>        /* Logical partitionning */
>>>> @@ -7484,7 +7498,7 @@ static void gen_spr_970_lpar(CPUPPCState *env)
>>>>                     0x00000000);
>>>>    }
>>>>    -static void init_proc_970 (CPUPPCState *env)
>>>> +static void init_proc_POWER(CPUPPCState *env, int version)
>>> Doesn't this conflict with
>>>
>>>    translate_init.c:POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>> No. This class does not define PowerPCCPUClass::init_proc at all. Bit
>> confusing though.
> 
> Yeah, we're probably better off with a different name ;)

I still suggest init_proc_POWER() and I find it only logical here as POWER
is (tm) and the other use is actually wrong and probably need change to
POWERPC :) Your move!



-- 
Alexey