|
From: | Hervé Poussineau |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] ppc: qdev-ify CPU creation |
Date: | Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:08:16 +0200 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
Alexander Graf a écrit :
CPUs don't need a bus with specific capabilities, so I used the most simple existing one, ie SysBus.On 21.12.2010, at 21:01, Andreas Färber wrote:From: Hervé Poussineau <address@hidden> v1: * Coding style fixes. Signed-off-by: Hervé Poussineau <address@hidden> Cc: Alexander Graf <address@hidden> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden> --- Hello Alex, Seeing the discussions about Leon3, is this the way to go for ppc? Is ppc.[hc] right? The unconditional use of 6xx looks suspicious to me, no? Should we rename cpu_device_irq_request() to cpu_device_irq_request_6xx()? Regards, Andreas hw/ppc.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/ppc.h | 2 + target-ppc/cpu.h | 1 + target-ppc/helper.c | 21 +++++++++++--- 4 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/ppc.c b/hw/ppc.c index 968aec1..0927326 100644 --- a/hw/ppc.c +++ b/hw/ppc.c @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ #include "loader.h" #include "kvm.h" #include "kvm_ppc.h" +#include "hw/qdev.h" +#include "hw/sysbus.h" //#define PPC_DEBUG_IRQ //#define PPC_DEBUG_TB @@ -1286,3 +1288,76 @@ int PPC_NVRAM_set_params (nvram_t *nvram, uint16_t NVRAM_size, return 0; } + +DeviceState *cpu_ppc_create_simple(const char *cpu_model) +{ + DeviceState *dev; + + dev = qdev_create(NULL, "cpu-ppc"); + if (!dev) { + return NULL; + } + qdev_prop_set_string(dev, "model", qemu_strdup(cpu_model)); + if (qdev_init(dev) < 0) { + return NULL; + } + return dev; +} + +typedef struct CPUPPC { + SysBusDevice busdev;I'm not sure we really want CPUs on the sysbus. They belong to their own CPU bus. Basically, I think we should try to model our bus topology so that it reflects the bus topology in the device tree 1:1. Then generating a device tree from the bug information and some device specific callbacks would be possible.
It's not related to qdev'ification. It is already set in CPU definitions since a long time.+ char *model; + CPUPPCState state; +} CPUPPC; + +static void cpu_device_irq_request(void *opaque, int pin, int level) +{ + CPUPPC* cpu = opaque; + CPUPPCState* env = &cpu->state; + ppc6xx_set_irq(env, pin, level); +} + +static int cpu_device_init(SysBusDevice *dev) +{ + CPUPPC* cpu = FROM_SYSBUS(CPUPPC, dev); + CPUPPCState* env = &cpu->state; + + if (cpu_ppc_init_inplace(env, cpu->model) < 0) { + return -1; + } + + if (env->flags & POWERPC_FLAG_RTC_CLK) {Where does this flag suddenly come from? Is this related to qdev'ification?
This code has been extracted from ppc_prep.c ; a qdev property is also fine.+ /* POWER / PowerPC 601 RTC clock frequency is 7.8125 MHz */ + cpu_ppc_tb_init(env, 7812500UL); + } else { + /* Set time-base frequency to 100 Mhz */ + cpu_ppc_tb_init(env, 100UL * 1000UL * 1000UL);Usually we have a TB frequency of 400Mhz in our board/devtrees hardcoded in the TCG case. How about a qdev property that the creator could just modify to its needs? We won't need the special 601 flag then either - just move that into the PREP code.
This function is not added ; it is already an existing one (see 25 lines before). I kept it to not put in the same patch the CPU qdev'ification and the change of all the callers. Indeed, a second patch may be created to change all callers to use cpu_ppc_create_simple() and to remove this function.+ } + + qdev_init_gpio_in(&dev->qdev, cpu_device_irq_request, PPC6xx_INPUT_NB); + return 0; +} + +static void cpu_device_reset(DeviceState *d) +{ + CPUPPC *s = FROM_SYSBUS(CPUPPC, sysbus_from_qdev(d)); + cpu_reset(&s->state); +} + +static SysBusDeviceInfo cpu_device_info = { + .qdev.name = "cpu-ppc", + .qdev.size = sizeof(CPUPPC), + .qdev.reset = cpu_device_reset, + .init = cpu_device_init, + .qdev.props = (Property[]) { + DEFINE_PROP_STRING("model", CPUPPC, model), + DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(), + }, +}; + +static void ppc_register_devices(void) +{ + sysbus_register_withprop(&cpu_device_info); +} + +device_init(ppc_register_devices) diff --git a/hw/ppc.h b/hw/ppc.h index 34f54cf..ae8dd97 100644 --- a/hw/ppc.h +++ b/hw/ppc.h @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ void ppce500_irq_init (CPUState *env); void ppc6xx_irq_init (CPUState *env); void ppc970_irq_init (CPUState *env); +DeviceState *cpu_ppc_create_simple(const char *cpu_model); + /* PPC machines for OpenBIOS */ enum { ARCH_PREP = 0, diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu.h b/target-ppc/cpu.h index deb8d7c..0f56d45 100644 --- a/target-ppc/cpu.h +++ b/target-ppc/cpu.h @@ -721,6 +721,7 @@ struct mmu_ctx_t { /*****************************************************************************/ CPUPPCState *cpu_ppc_init (const char *cpu_model); +int cpu_ppc_init_inplace(CPUPPCState *env, const char *cpu_model); void ppc_translate_init(void); int cpu_ppc_exec (CPUPPCState *s); void cpu_ppc_close (CPUPPCState *s); diff --git a/target-ppc/helper.c b/target-ppc/helper.c index 4b49101..99af1f6 100644 --- a/target-ppc/helper.c +++ b/target-ppc/helper.c @@ -2794,22 +2794,33 @@ void cpu_reset(CPUPPCState *env) tlb_flush(env, 1); } -CPUPPCState *cpu_ppc_init (const char *cpu_model) +int cpu_ppc_init_inplace(CPUPPCState *env, const char *cpu_model) { - CPUPPCState *env; const ppc_def_t *def; def = cpu_ppc_find_by_name(cpu_model); - if (!def) - return NULL; + if (!def) { + return -1; + } - env = qemu_mallocz(sizeof(CPUPPCState)); cpu_exec_init(env); ppc_translate_init(); env->cpu_model_str = cpu_model; cpu_ppc_register_internal(env, def); qemu_init_vcpu(env); + return 0; +} + +CPUPPCState *cpu_ppc_init(const char *cpu_model) +{ + CPUPPCState *env; + + env = qemu_mallocz(sizeof(CPUPPCState)); + if (cpu_ppc_init_inplace(env, cpu_model) < 0) {Why would we need this function again if the CPUs are qdev'ified?
Overall, I really like the idea of moving CPUs to qdev though. Makes things a lot more structured.
Thanks Hervé
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |