Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] hw: arm_gic: Introduce GIC_SET_PRIORITY macro

[Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>]

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 04:37:44PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 23.08.2013, at 21:10, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> 
> > To make the code slightly cleaner to look at and make the save/restore
> > code easier to understand, introduce this macro to set the priority of
> > interrupts.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > hw/intc/arm_gic.c      |    6 +-----
> > hw/intc/gic_internal.h |    6 ++++++
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gic.c b/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
> > index bff3f9e..a7bb528 100644
> > --- a/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
> > +++ b/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
> > @@ -444,11 +444,7 @@ static void gic_dist_writeb(void *opaque, hwaddr offset,
> >         irq = (offset - 0x400) + GIC_BASE_IRQ;
> >         if (irq >= s->num_irq)
> >             goto bad_reg;
> > -        if (irq < GIC_INTERNAL) {
> > -            s->priority1[irq][cpu] = value;
> > -        } else {
> > -            s->priority2[irq - GIC_INTERNAL] = value;
> > -        }
> > +        GIC_SET_PRIORITY(irq, cpu, value);
> >     } else if (offset < 0xc00) {
> >         /* Interrupt CPU Target. RAZ/WI on uniprocessor GICs, with the
> >          * annoying exception of the 11MPCore's GIC.
> > diff --git a/hw/intc/gic_internal.h b/hw/intc/gic_internal.h
> > index 1426437..d835aa1 100644
> > --- a/hw/intc/gic_internal.h
> > +++ b/hw/intc/gic_internal.h
> > @@ -57,6 +57,12 @@
> > #define GIC_GET_PRIORITY(irq, cpu) (((irq) < GIC_INTERNAL) ?            \
> >                                     s->priority1[irq][cpu] :            \
> >                                     s->priority2[(irq) - GIC_INTERNAL])
> > +#define GIC_SET_PRIORITY(irq, cpu, val) do { \
> > +    uint8_t *__x = ((irq) < GIC_INTERNAL) ? \
> > +                    &s->priority1[irq][cpu] : \
> > +                    &s->priority2[(irq) - GIC_INTERNAL]; \
> > +    *__x = val; \
> > +} while (0)
> 
> Why not make this a function?
> 
Ah, you're no fun anymore.  ok.

-Christoffer