I would like to get some opinions on the following.
I'm working on extending our existing board definition files to support our
ePAPR reference hypervisor. Because our hypervisor provides a virtual PIC, we
need to have different functions for define_machine() structure that related to
the PIC, but most everything else can stay the same.
define_machine(p4080_hv) {
.name = "P4080DS HV",
.probe = p4080hv_probe,
.setup_arch = corenet_ds_setup_arch,
.init_IRQ = fsl_hv_pic_init,
#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
.pcibios_fixup_bus = fsl_pcibios_fixup_bus,
#endif
.get_irq = ehv_pic_get_irq,
.restart = fsl_hv_restart,
.power_off = fsl_hv_halt,
.halt = fsl_hv_halt,
.calibrate_decr = generic_calibrate_decr,
.progress = udbg_progress,
};
Rather than create two such structures for each board that can support the
hypervisor (one with HV support, one without), I would like to do the following
instead. What do you all think?
define_machine(p4080_ds) {
.name = "P4080 DS",
.probe = p4080_ds_probe,
...
.get_irq = mpic_get_coreint_irq,
};
static int __init p4080_ds_probe(void)
{
...
#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_HYPERVISOR
if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "fsl,P4080DS-hv")) {
mach_p4080_ds.get_irq = ehv_pic_get_irq;
...
return 1;
} else
return 0;
#endif
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
