[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] target/ppc: Isolated SPR read/write callbacks
From: |
David Gibson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] target/ppc: Isolated SPR read/write callbacks |
Date: |
Tue, 4 May 2021 10:28:27 +1000 |
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 05:15:38PM -0300, Bruno Piazera Larsen wrote:
>
> On 03/05/2021 01:54, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:35:28PM -0300, Bruno Larsen (billionai) wrote:
> > > Moved all SPR read/write callback, and some related functions, to a
> > > new file specific for it. These callbacks are TCG only, so separating
> > > them is required to support the build flag disable-tcg.
> > >
> > > Making the spr_noaccess function not static, and moving the define to
> > > internal.h is required, otherwise the project doesn't build
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruno Larsen (billionai) <bruno.larsen@eldorado.org.br>
> > > ---
> > > target/ppc/internal.h | 3 +
> > > target/ppc/spr_tcg.c.inc | 1052 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > target/ppc/translate.c | 47 +-
> > > target/ppc/translate_init.c.inc | 981 ----------------------------
> > > 4 files changed, 1056 insertions(+), 1027 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 target/ppc/spr_tcg.c.inc
> > Hmm. So, I'm still pretty ambivalent about the creation of
> > spr_tcg.c.inc. The separation between it and translate.c just seems
> > rather arbitrary to me.
> >
> > Yes, translate.c is overly huge, but I'm not sure going from
> > overly-huge to overly-huger really makes anything worse, and would
> > avoid some of the dancing around to handle the new file.
> >
> > So for now, I'm inclined to suggest just moving the spr callbacks from
> > translate_init.c.inc to translate.c. And some day, I hope someone has
> > time to split up translate.c based on CPU family, which I think is a
> > more useful way to make it less huge.
>
> Ok. I agree that the improved is pretty minor, I was just thinking it was
> probably better than nothing... I'll work on that tomorrow and will have a
> new version.
>
> When I do, should I put the many e-mail IDs that hold required patches as
> "Based-on" tags, or should I just say ppc-for-6.1? I'm still a bit lost when
> dealing with patchew and these things...
You can just say it's against ppc-for-6.1 in the cover letter. Since
it's an explicitly ppc specific patchset, and the main audience is me
there's no need to get too complicated.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature