Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC 9/9] spapr: Add pseries-2.6 machine type

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 12/01/2015 02:12 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 01:43:10PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > On 11/30/2015 07:51 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >   hw/ppc/spapr.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> > >   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > > index 3d31fe7..f680497 100644
> > > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > > @@ -2334,9 +2334,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_machine_info = {
> > >       machine_init(spapr_machine_register_##suffix)
> > >
> > >   /*
> > > - * pseries-2.5
> > > + * pseries-2.6
> > >    */
> > > -static void spapr_machine_2_5_class_compat(MachineClass *mc)
> > > +static void spapr_machine_2_6_class_compat(MachineClass *mc)
> > >   {
> > >       sPAPRMachineClass *smc = SPAPR_MACHINE_CLASS(mc);
> > >
> > > @@ -2344,7 +2344,17 @@ static void spapr_machine_2_5_class_compat(MachineClass 
> > > *mc)
> > >       mc->desc = "pSeries Logical Partition (PAPR compliant)";
> > >   }
> > >
> > > -DEFINE_SPAPR_MACHINE(2_5, "2.5", NULL, true);
> > > +DEFINE_SPAPR_MACHINE(2_6, "2.6", NULL, true);
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * pseries-2.5
> > > + */
> > > +static void spapr_machine_2_5_class_compat(MachineClass *mc)
> > > +{
> > > +    spapr_machine_2_6_class_compat(mc);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +DEFINE_SPAPR_MACHINE(2_5, "2.5", NULL, false);
> > >
> > >   /*
> > >    * pseries-2.4
> >
> > After this patch, "smc->dr_lmb_enabled = true" moved to
> > spapr_machine_2_6_class_compat() from  spapr_machine_2_5_class_compat(), was
> > that on purpose?
>
> Yes.  2.6 wants dr lmb enabled as well, which means 2.5 doesn't need
> it because it calls the 2.6 function.  The significant part of the
> history is where the 2.4 function turns if *off* again.

And then "smc->dr_lmb_enabled = true" will have to jump to new 
spapr_machine_2_7_class_compat() (or whatever version it will be by then)?
Uff. ok.

I'd just understand it better if there was 
spapr_machine_default_class_init() which would set everything "on" and the 
latest default spapr_machine_X_Y_class_compat() would call it directly; the 
lower version class_init()s would call upper level (as the patchset does) 
and disable individual features.

And spapr_machine_class_init() would only initialize class callbacks but 
not touch the features.


--
Alexey