On 03.07.14 17:25, mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v2] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Use common defines for
SPE/FP/AltiVec int numbers
On 30.06.14 17:34, Mihai Caraman wrote:
Use common BOOKE_IRQPRIO and BOOKE_INTERRUPT defines for SPE/FP/AltiVec
which share the same interrupt numbers.
Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
- remove outdated definitions
arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 8 --------
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 17 +++++++++--------
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.h | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_interrupts.S | 9 +++++----
arch/powerpc/kvm/bookehv_interrupts.S | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.c | 10 ++++++----
arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c | 10 ++++++----
7 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
index 9601741..c94fd33 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
@@ -56,14 +56,6 @@
/* E500 */
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 32
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 33
-/*
- * TODO: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit kernel exception handlers to use same
defines
- */
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_UNAVAIL
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST \
- BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
I think I'd prefer to keep them separate.
What is the reason from changing your mind from ver 1? Do you want to have
Uh, mind to point me to an email where I said I like the approach? :)
different defines with same values (we specifically mapped them to the
hardware interrupt numbers). We already upstreamed the necessary changes
Yes, I think that'd end up the most readable flow of things.
in the kernel. Scott, please share your opinion here.
I'm not going to be religious about it, but names like
"BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST" are
1) too long
2) too ambiguous
It just means the code gets harder to read. Any way we can take to
simplify the code flow is a win IMHO. And if I don't even remotely have
to consider SPE when reading an Altivec path, I think that's a good
thing :).
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
