Re: [RFC v1 06/38] target/arm: split off cpu-softmmu.c

[Claudio Fontana]

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 <cfontana@suse.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> From: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@centriq4.arch.suse.de>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@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.bennee@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