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?
We're moving the hook from CPUState to TCGCPUOps.
Phil was trying to avoid creating N versions of
static const struct TCGCPUOps ppc_tcg_ops = {
...
};
A plausible alternative is to remove the const from this struct and modify it, just as we
do for CPUState, on the assumption that we cannot mix and match ppc cpu types in any one
machine.
r~
