On Wed, 2026-10-21 at 14:35 -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> On 10/21/2026 2:27 PM, Yonggang Luo wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 2:27 AM Pierrick Bouvier
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 10/16/2026 4:22 PM, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> > > > This series adds this target to set of multi-target.
> > > > Changes are straightforward: functions and helpers renaming,
> > > > and one type
> > > > restriction for this target only.
> > > > 
> > > > While the series applies cleanly, it will need those additional
> > > > two series to
> > > > build multi-target test binary:
> > > > 
> > > > - Based-on:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > "multi-target: remove dump functions duplication"
> > > > - Based-on:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > "multi-target: remove qmp_query_cpu_model_expansion
> > > > duplication"
> > > > 
> > > > Usually I prefer to wait for series to be merged, but I have
> > > > good hope to catch
> > > > the freeze date if current series is reviewed, and send all
> > > > three at once.
> > > > 
> > > > v2
> > > > --
> > > > 
> > > > - make virt machine only available for riscv targets
> > > > - enhance multi-target test to detect duplicated types between
> > > > all targets (we
> > > >   missed the virt machine since we were always picking the
> > > > first target avail)
> > > > - add an additional commit with the rest of softmmu commented
> > > > for future work
> > > > 
> > > > Pierrick Bouvier (9):
> > > >   target-info: add target_base_riscv
> > > >   hw/riscv/virt: make machine available for riscv targets only
> > > >   test/unit/multi-target: check QOM types can be initialized
> > > > with any
> > > >     target
> > > >   hw/riscv/virt: restrict scope of virt_is_acpi_enabled to this
> > > > file
> > > >   target/riscv: rename virt_acpi_setup to riscv_virt_acpi_setup
> > > >   target/riscv: prefix helpers conflicting with other arch
> > > >   target/riscv/tcg: restrict tcg-accel-riscv-cpu to riscv
> > > > targets
> > > >   meson.build: add riscv64-softmmu to multi-target
> > > >   meson.build: list all remaining softmmu targets as comments
> > > > 
> > > >  hw/riscv/virt-acpi-build.c                    |  2 +-
> > > >  hw/riscv/virt.c                               | 14 ++++----
> > > >  include/hw/riscv/virt.h                       |  3 +-
> > > >  include/qemu/target-info.h                    |  7 ++++
> > > >  meson.build                                   | 18 ++++++++++
> > > >  target-info.c                                 | 11 ++++++
> > > >  target/riscv/helper.h                         | 24 ++++++-----
> > > > --
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/bitmanip_helper.c            |  4 +--
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/fpu_helper.c                 | 16 ++++-----
> > > >  .../tcg/insn_trans/trans_privileged.c.inc     |  2 +-
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/insn_trans/trans_rvd.c.inc   |  8 ++---
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/insn_trans/trans_rvf.c.inc   |  8 ++---
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/insn_trans/trans_rvi.c.inc   |  4 +--
> > > >  .../tcg/insn_trans/trans_rvzicfiss.c.inc      |  2 +-
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/insn_trans/trans_xlrbr.c.inc |  4 +--
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/op_helper.c                  |  4 +--
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c                    |  1 +
> > > >  target/riscv/tcg/translate.c                  |  4 +--
> > > >  tests/unit/test-multi-target.c                | 34
> > > > ++++++++++++++-----
> > > >  19 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Except if there are specific comments, I'll send it as a PR
> > > tomorrow,
> > > with the two companions based-on series, and with the current
> > > helper
> > > renaming, as there was no comment on general helper renaming.
> > > Helpers
> > > renaming can be reverted as part of general helper series.
> > 
> > Hi Pierrick
> > I personally feel a general helper introduced too much magic, I
> > think
> > helpers renaming is fine.
> > If we want sharing a name, a more make sense way is refactoring
> > them
> > have same behavior, such
> > as add/div/mul.
> > 
> 
> Hi Yonggang,
> 
> It's one of the reason I preferred the ad hoc rename so far, not
> being
> sure the effort was worth the result.

Can we at least rename all of them then?

Ad hoc renaming just seems like the worst of all the options

> 
> The original attempt you sent to fix this by renaming binary symbols
> using asm() is definitely too much magic to my taste. I hope the
> second
> attempt, source based, will be more satisfying, as it has very little
> magic (just relying on HELPER and HELPER_INFO macros).
> 
> In all cases, this is a conversation that can happen in parallel of
> enabling more targets since reverting those renames is a pretty
> simple task.

Agreed

Alistair

> 
> Regards,
> Pierrick

Reply via email to