Re: [PATCH v7 02/21] target/loongarch: Add core definition

[Song Gao]

Hi, Xuerui, Philippe.

On 10/19/2021 01:38 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 10/18/21 18:06, WANG Xuerui wrote:
>> Hi Song,
>>
>> On 10/18/21 20:47, Song Gao wrote:
>>> This patch add target state header, target definitions
>>> and initialization routines.
>> "adds"; fix in other patches too.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Song Gao <gaosong@loongson.cn>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiaojuan Yang <yangxiaojuan@loongson.cn>
>>> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>   target/loongarch/cpu-param.h |  19 +++
>>>   target/loongarch/cpu.c       | 285
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   target/loongarch/cpu.h       | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   target/loongarch/internals.h |  23 ++++
>>>   4 files changed, 478 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 target/loongarch/cpu-param.h
>>>   create mode 100644 target/loongarch/cpu.c
>>>   create mode 100644 target/loongarch/cpu.h
>>>   create mode 100644 target/loongarch/internals.h
> 
> 
>>> +static void set_loongarch_cpucfg(CPULoongArchState *env)
>>> +{
>>> +    int i;
>>> +
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < 49; i++) {
>>> +        env->cpucfg[i] = 0x0;
>>> +    }
>>> +    env->cpucfg[0] = 0x14c010;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[1] = 0x3f2f2fe;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[2] = 0x60c3cf;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[3] = 0xcff;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[4] = 0x5f5e100;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[5] = 0x10001;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[16] = 0x2c3d;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[17] = 0x6080003;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[18] = 0x6080003;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[19] = 0x60800f;
>>> +    env->cpucfg[20] = 0x60f000f;
>> I know these values are taken from a real 3A5000 chip, since I have such
>> a machine and I've done the experiment, but others likely wouldn't
>> notice so quickly. Maybe put some comment on top of this function to
>> illustrate this?
> 
> Simpler: ...
> 
On linux-user emulation. We don't care about the value of cpucfg[i]. 
I think we only need to set cpucfg[i] to 0. and set value on system emulations, 
is that better? 

>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/* LoongArch CPU definitions */
>> Doc-string for such a function should be verb phrase; but in this case
>> would it be better to just drop the comment? The code is pretty concise
>> and self-documenting after all.
>>> +static void loongarch_3a5000_initfn(Object *obj)
>>> +{
>>> +    LoongArchCPU *cpu = LOONGARCH_CPU(obj);
>>> +    CPULoongArchState *env = &cpu->env;
>>> +
>>> +    set_loongarch_cpucfg(env);
> 
> ... directly inline here.
> OK.

Thanks
Song Gao
>>> +}