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

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

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 :)

> Also Paolo, any comments, since softmmu is all over meson?
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Claudio
>