On 2/23/21 10:16 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 2/23/21 9:55 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> On 2/22/21 6:29 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> >>> Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> writes: >>> >>>> From: Claudio Fontana <cfont...@centriq4.arch.suse.de> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> >>>> --- >>>> target/arm/internals.h | 9 ++- >>>> target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> target/arm/cpu.c | 95 --------------------------- >>>> target/arm/meson.build | 1 + >>>> 4 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c >>>> >>>> diff --git a/target/arm/internals.h b/target/arm/internals.h >>>> index 6384461177..6589b63ebc 100644 >>>> --- a/target/arm/internals.h >>>> +++ b/target/arm/internals.h >>>> @@ -1196,4 +1196,11 @@ static inline uint64_t >>>> useronly_maybe_clean_ptr(uint32_t desc, uint64_t ptr) >>>> return ptr; >>>> } >>>> >>>> -#endif >>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY >>>> +void arm_cpu_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq, int level); >>>> +void arm_cpu_kvm_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq, int level); >>>> +bool arm_cpu_virtio_is_big_endian(CPUState *cs); >>>> +uint64_t a15_l2ctlr_read(CPUARMState *env, const ARMCPRegInfo *ri); >>>> +#endif /* !CONFIG_USER_ONLY */ >>>> + >>>> +#endif /* TARGET_ARM_INTERNALS_H */ >>>> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c b/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000000..263d1fc588 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ >>>> +/* >>>> + * QEMU ARM CPU >>> >>> I guess apropos the discussion earlier it's really cpu-sysemu.c and we >>> could expand the header comment. >>> >>> QEMU ARM CPU - Helpers for system emulation and KVM only >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> Otherwise: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> >>> >> >> Should I rename all *softmmu in the series to "sysemu"? >> >> I wonder if we should take the issue of sysemu/system/softmmu topic into a >> separate series. >> Currently basically starting from the build system already, "softmmu", >> sysemu and system are treated as a single thing, and the convention from >> build system and directories seems to be "softmmu", >> while from the header files we get "sysemu/". >> >> I agree that this is not a sufficient model to account for the new feature >> that Richard wants to develop, >> I just suggest we could also consider tackling this separately, with a pass >> through the whole code, gathering more input in the context of a dedicated >> series. >> >> What do you think? > > This is a valid reasoning. However I have my doubts "doing > that later" will ever be done/finished (not related to you > Claudio in particular, but with dealing with all subsystems). > > Personally I'd rather see this sorted out with the arm target > then once done propose it as an example to the other ones. > You already considered the most complex cases, x86 and arm :)
Ok, if there are no other comments I would go with "sysemu", just because "system" is a bit too much of a loaded word, and we have the precedent of include/sysemu/ . > >> Also Paolo, any comments, since softmmu is all over meson? >> And Peter, any comments, preference? Ciao, Claudio
