On 9/3/21 2:50 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 06:15:34PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Each POWER cpu has its own has_work() implementation. Instead of
>> overloading CPUClass on each PowerPCCPUClass init, register the
>> generic ppc_cpu_has_work() handler, and have it call the POWER
>> specific has_work().
>
> I don't quite see the rationale for introducing a second layer of
> indirection here. What's wrong with switching the base has_work for
> each cpu variant?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> target/ppc/cpu-qom.h | 3 +++
>> target/ppc/cpu_init.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> @@ -8796,6 +8800,12 @@ static bool ppc_cpu_has_work(CPUState *cs)
>> PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs);
>> CPUPPCState *env = &cpu->env;
>>
>> + if (cs->halted) {
>> + PowerPCCPUClass *pcc = POWERPC_CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu);
Maybe I should have kept the 'if (cs->halted)' for the next patch,
simply dispatch here, then in the next patch the code simplification
is more apparent. I thought this approach would involve less #ifdef'ry
but haven't checked the other way around. Will do now.
>> + return pcc->has_work(cs);
>> + }
>> +
>> return msr_ee && (cs->interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD);
>> }
>> #endif /* CONFIG_TCG && !CONFIG_USER_ONLY */
>
