[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/5] kvm/powerpc: Enable MPIC for E500 platform.

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:04:17PM +0200, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 2/27/09, Liu Yu-B13201 <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: Blue Swirl [mailto:address@hidden
> >  > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:47 AM
> >  > To: Liu Yu-B13201
> >  > Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden;
> >  > address@hidden; address@hidden
> >  > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] kvm/powerpc: Enable MPIC for E500 platform.
> >  >
> >  > On 2/26/09, Liu Yu <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  > > MPIC and OpenPIC have very similar design.
> >  > >  So a lot of code can be reused.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Modification mainly include:
> >  > >  1. keep struct openpic_t to the maximum size of both MPIC
> >  > and OpenPIC.
> >  > >  2. endianess swap.
> >  > >    MPIC has the same endianess as target, so no need to
> >  > swap for MPIC.
> >  > >  3. using different init functions and function pointers
> >  > for reset and irq raise.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Haven't test OpenPIC.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Signed-off-by: Liu Yu <address@hidden>
> >  >
> >  > >  +    struct {
> >  > >  +        CPUReadMemoryFunc **read;
> >  > >  +        CPUWriteMemoryFunc **write;
> >  > >  +        target_phys_addr_t start_addr;
> >  > >  +        ram_addr_t size;
> >  > >  +    } list[] = {
> >  > >  +        {mpic_glb_read, mpic_glb_write,
> >  > MPIC_GLB_REG_START, MPIC_GLB_REG_SIZE},
> >  > >  +        {mpic_tmr_read, mpic_tmr_write,
> >  > MPIC_TMR_REG_START, MPIC_TMR_REG_SIZE},
> >  > >  +        {mpic_ext_read, mpic_ext_write,
> >  > MPIC_EXT_REG_START, MPIC_EXT_REG_SIZE},
> >  > >  +        {mpic_int_read, mpic_int_write,
> >  > MPIC_INT_REG_START, MPIC_INT_REG_SIZE},
> >  > >  +        {mpic_msg_read, mpic_msg_write,
> >  > MPIC_MSG_REG_START, MPIC_MSG_REG_SIZE},
> >  > >  +        {mpic_msi_read, mpic_msi_write,
> >  > MPIC_MSI_REG_START, MPIC_MSI_REG_SIZE},
> >  > >  +        {mpic_cpu_read, mpic_cpu_write,
> >  > MPIC_CPU_REG_START, MPIC_CPU_REG_SIZE},
> >  > >  +    };
> >  >
> >  > "static const" ?
> >  >
> >
> >
> > Why static? It's allocated on stack and will be free when function return.
> 
> True, but it will be constructed for every call. But as this function
> will be called only once, it does not matter too much.
> 

I have committed another patch to fix that.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
address@hidden                 http://www.aurel32.net