On 6/25/19 12:41 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:36:35PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 6/25/19 1:24 AM, Alistair Francis wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:57 PM Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Currently, there is no cpu topology defined in RISC-V. >>>> Define a device tree node that clearly describes the >>>> entire topology. This saves the trouble of scanning individual >>>> cache to figure out the topology. >>>> >>>> Here is the linux kernel patch series that enables topology >>>> for RISC-V. >>>> >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2019-June/005072.html >>>> >>>> CPU topology after applying this patch in QEMU & above series in kernel >>>> >>>> / # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/topology/thread_siblings_list >>>> 2 >>>> / # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/topology/physical_package_id >>>> 0 >>>> / # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/topology/core_siblings_list >>>> 0-7 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com> >>>> --- >>>> hw/riscv/virt.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/hw/riscv/virt.c b/hw/riscv/virt.c >>>> index 84d94d0c42d8..da0b8aa18747 100644 >>>> --- a/hw/riscv/virt.c >>>> +++ b/hw/riscv/virt.c >>>> @@ -203,9 +203,12 @@ static void *create_fdt(RISCVVirtState *s, const >>>> struct MemmapEntry *memmap, >>>> qemu_fdt_setprop_string(fdt, nodename, "status", "okay"); >>>> qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, nodename, "reg", cpu); >>>> qemu_fdt_setprop_string(fdt, nodename, "device_type", "cpu"); >>>> + qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, nodename, "phandle", cpu_phandle); >>>> + qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, nodename, "linux,phandle", >>>> cpu_phandle); >>>> + int intc_phandle = phandle++; >>> >>> Don't declare variables in the middle of code. The variable must be >>> declared at the start of a block. >> >> I guess this has been relaxed since we allow GNU C99: > > Even though we allow GNU C99 I think it is undesirable to declare variables > in the middle of methods. This is especially true when combined with "goto" > as you end up with undefined / uninitialized vairable contents at the jump > target, if we've jumped over the variable declaration. > > We can't enforce location of variable declarations, but I'd really > recommend we keep them all at the start of code blocks.
In this case I find it desirable: for (int i = 0; ...) { ... } For the rest, I agree to keep them at the start of code block. Regards, Phil.