qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 12/19] target/riscv: add KVM specific MISA properties


From: Daniel Henrique Barboza
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/19] target/riscv: add KVM specific MISA properties
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 19:38:45 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0



On 6/24/23 04:32, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 11:14:45AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:


On 6/23/23 06:38, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:56:53AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
...
+#define KVM_MISA_CFG(_bit, _reg_id) \
+    {.offset = _bit, .kvm_reg_id = _reg_id}
+
+/* KVM ISA extensions */
+static KVMCPUConfig kvm_misa_ext_cfgs[] = {
+    KVM_MISA_CFG(RVA, KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_A),
+    KVM_MISA_CFG(RVC, KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_C),
+    KVM_MISA_CFG(RVD, KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_D),
+    KVM_MISA_CFG(RVF, KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_F),
+    KVM_MISA_CFG(RVH, KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_H),
+    KVM_MISA_CFG(RVI, KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_I),
+    KVM_MISA_CFG(RVM, KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_M),
+};
+
...
+static void kvm_riscv_add_cpu_user_properties(Object *cpu_obj)
+{
+    int i;
+
+    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_misa_ext_cfgs); i++) {
+        KVMCPUConfig *misa_cfg = &kvm_misa_ext_cfgs[i];
+        int bit = misa_cfg->offset;
+
+        misa_cfg->name = misa_ext_info_arr[bit].name;
+        misa_cfg->description = misa_ext_info_arr[bit].description;

I'd prefer these be set by KVM_MISA_CFG(), since we can. No need to wait
until runtime if we can do it at compile-time.

The compiler will complain about "error: initializer element is not constant" 
and
the build will fail. This happens because, apparently, the compiler doesn't see 
the
imported array as a constant, regardless of the 'const' type.


You're right. Initialization the way I suggested only works when
everything is in the same source file. That's a pity. So we can
either manage it they way you've done here or the way you did
in a previous patch, which was to include the info array in each
source file by putting it in the header. I think I prefer the
approach you used in this version more though.

Alright, let's keep this version then.

Btw I just noticed that I kept your reviewed-by from the previous version in
this patch by accident. Can you please send a r-b for this version (in case
you agree, of course)?


Thanks,

Daniel


Thanks,
drew



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]