On 3/3/23 08:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 06:26:12PM -0800, Haitao Shan wrote:
Add the configure support for the Android Emulator hypervisor driver
accelerator. The Android Emulator hypervisor driver is a Windows
driver made by porting the KVM from kernel 4.9-rc7.
Signed-off-by: Haitao Shan <hs...@google.com>
Replying on patch 1 but it applies to the whole patchset.
Indeed this series lacks a cover letter, which would show
this huge diffstat:
MAINTAINERS | 12 +
accel/Kconfig | 3 +
docs/about/build-platforms.rst | 2 +-
hw/i386/aehd/apic.c | 204 +++++++++++++++
hw/i386/aehd/i8259.c | 165 ++++++++++++
hw/i386/aehd/ioapic.c | 164 ++++++++++++
hw/i386/aehd/meson.build | 6 +
hw/i386/meson.build | 1 +
hw/i386/pc.c | 5 +
hw/i386/x86.c | 5 +-
include/exec/poison.h | 1 +
include/exec/ram_addr.h | 2 -
include/hw/core/cpu.h | 7 +
include/hw/intc/i8259.h | 1 +
include/hw/intc/ioapic.h | 1 +
include/sysemu/aehd-interface.h | 878
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/sysemu/aehd.h | 168 ++++++++++++
include/sysemu/hw_accel.h | 1 +
meson.build | 16 ++
meson_options.txt | 2 +
qemu-options.hx | 20 +-
scripts/meson-buildoptions.sh | 2 +
target/i386/aehd/aehd-accel-ops.c | 119 +++++++++
target/i386/aehd/aehd-accel-ops.h | 22 ++
target/i386/aehd/aehd-all.c | 1349
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
target/i386/aehd/aehd-cpu.c | 150 +++++++++++
target/i386/aehd/aehd-cpu.h | 41 +++
target/i386/aehd/aehd-stub.c | 22 ++
target/i386/aehd/aehd.c | 2003
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
target/i386/aehd/aehd_i386.h | 26 ++
target/i386/aehd/aehd_int.h | 50 ++++
target/i386/aehd/meson.build | 8 +
target/i386/cpu-sysemu.c | 3 +
target/i386/cpu.c | 12 +-
target/i386/cpu.h | 5 +-
target/i386/helper.c | 3 +
target/i386/meson.build | 2 +
37 files changed, 5465 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
There's obvious duplication with kvm here - probably not surprising.
I'd be interested to hear from KVM people to know whether
there's interest in unifying code, or they would rather
not bother supporting this platform and it's better off
being kept separate.
I believe the hw part can be unified, reducing the maintenance
cost. (I gave Haitao few hints replying to the relevant patches).
Regards,
Phil.
