Nakayama-San,
>> This patch adds infrastructure for defining Virtual address translation bits
>> for each platform and use the specific definition for the platform depending on
>> the 'powerpc_base_platform' variable. If a matching platform is not found,
>> fallbacks to the default definition.
>>
>> Each platform can define the PGDIRSHIT, PTRS_PER_PTE and the size of a
>> physical address.
>>
>> I have not modified the size of the machdep->pgd allocation. Instead,
>> we always read a PAGESIZE() which contains the entry.
>
> This way is very effectual in several angles, I like it
> in addtion to your first integration work.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K. Poulose<suzuki@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> --- a/ppc.c
>> +++ b/ppc.c
>> @@ -67,10 +67,59 @@ static void ppc_display_machine_stats(void);
>> static void ppc_dump_line_number(ulong);
>> static struct line_number_hook ppc_line_number_hooks[];
>>
>> +struct platform {
>> + char *name;
>
> const char *name is better?
Yes, will do that.
>
>> + int pgdir_shift;
>> + int ptrs_per_pgd;
>> + int ptrs_per_pte;
>> + int pte_size;
>> +} ppc_boards[] = {
>> + {
>> + /* Always keep the default as the first entry */
>> + .name = "default",
>> + .pgdir_shift = DEFAULT_PGDIR_SHIFT,
>> + .ptrs_per_pgd = DEFAULT_PTRS_PER_PGD,
>> + .ptrs_per_pte = DEFAULT_PTRS_PER_PTE,
>> + .pte_size = DEFAULT_PTE_SIZE,
>> + },
>> + {
>> + /* Keep this at the end */
>> + .name = NULL,
>> + }
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct platform *base_platform;
>> +static struct platform *ppc_get_base_platform(void);
>> +
>> /* Defined in diskdump.c */
>> extern void process_elf32_notes(void *, ulong);
>>
>> /*
>> + * Find the platform of the crashing system and set the
>> + * base_platform accordingly.
>> + */
>> +struct platform*
>> +ppc_get_base_platform(void)
>> +{
>> + char platform[32];
>> + struct platform *tmp =&ppc_boards[1]; /* start at 1 */
>> + ulong ppc_platform;
>> +
>> + if(!try_get_symbol_data("powerpc_base_platform", sizeof(ulong),&ppc_platform))
>> + return&ppc_boards[0];
>> +
>> + if (read_string(ppc_platform, platform, 31) == 0)
>> + return&ppc_boards[0];
>> +
>> + for (; tmp->name!= NULL; tmp++)
>> + if (!strcmp(tmp->name, platform))
>> + return tmp;
>
> Is there any reasons to distinct "ppc440gp"?
>
No specific reasons, apart from just the name difference.
> Since I see that there are no "ppc440" prefix platform other than PPC40
> in latest cpu_specs[], and all of ppc440gp's values in ppc_boards[] are the
> same as ppc440.
> Can it be summarized by using STRNEQ("ppc440") or strncmp("ppc440")?
The problem is, this is generic code. And there could be a different platforms
which start with the same prefix and having different settings for the page
bits, (e.g, freescale processors). So generalizing this would be a problem.
One option I could think of is defining a function rather than a 'name' for each
platform to identify the 'running platform' as its variant.
i.e,
struct platform {
int (*check_platform) (char *s);
const char *name;
...
}
Where we could invoke the check_platform() for each platform, instead of
doing a check ourselves. The check_platform() could be implemented by each
distinct platforms and could use one board definition for multiple platform
values. This would also help us to reduce the 'platform' definitions as different
non-related platforms may also have the same set of definitions.
So the loop would look like :
for (; tmp->name!= NULL; tmp++)
if (tmpe->check_platform(platform))
return tmp;
What do you think about this approach ?
> And I often see similar comparisons as SRTEQ() in crash code,
> also "unsigned long long" is "ulonglong".
I will switch to ulonglong.
Thank you, for the review !
Suzuki
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
