On 15/5/25 17:22, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
On 5/15/25 4:05 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 14/5/25 18:59, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
On 5/14/25 9:53 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 14/5/25 10:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 5/13/25 18:39, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
arm_cpu_has_feature() is equivalent of arm_feature(), however
while the latter uses CPUARMState so is target-specific, the
former doesn't and can be called by target-agnostic code in hw/.
CPUARMState is no more target-specific than ARMCPU.
ARMCPU is forward-declared as opaque pointer in target/arm/cpu-qom.h,
so we can expose prototypes using it to non-ARM units.
CPUARMState is only declared in "cpu.h", itself only accessible by
ARM-related units.
Maybe we can simply postpone introduction of arm_cpu_has_feature() when
it will be really needed.
Patches 17 and 18 are not strictly needed, as cpu.h (which resolves to
target/arm/cpu.h implicitely) is perfectly accessible to code in hw/arm
without any problem.
OK.
Peter, would you be OK to take reviewed patches #1 up to #15 (the
previous one) or do you rather I respin them?
In case you respin, feel free to include the base series, so we can
combine both.
Isn't the base already pulled in by Peter? I thought it was:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20250515102546.2149601-1-peter.mayd...@linaro.org/
