From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.182.158.201 with SMTP id ww9csp4297066obb; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:33:09 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.251.131 with SMTP id w125mr43730967qhc.1.1450902789417; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:33:09 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org. [2001:4830:134:3::11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e127si41462872qkb.26.2015.12.23.12.33.09 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:4830:134:3::11; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com Received: from localhost ([::1]:57718 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBq5s-0003o5-V3 for alex.bennee@linaro.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:33:08 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57869) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBq5r-0003ny-EO for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:33:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBq5n-0004p4-El for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:33:07 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]:33663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBq5n-0004oy-8r; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:33:03 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p187so157907599wmp.0; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:33:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Uh/8fkG4xiVAFHsFAE2kj0N1pKo2xS8TXHzpS1KJ6aw=; b=XH+QshpycLiH1CLlIxaKfRzoKiRr9rTCJeUFMTGbbyaj7fhsbHTMQsMvcAg2g1KCys B5LD1Rg6a1H3PUOL1wnTvU57QVZENEuO0YXeVAZqd6eAxPeuEZ71K/7ShJUEtDZHyK4Q k8igQv+BUqFC7Jbp/5fxB5hU4ODT1TBdP+ZT48jRnydmbFjOHf2kFphk4qVmb63ZqvsM /iBxglEYyWdCXMGuwVvQgnK4LH9d6XhMLUu3aW+vmfHSEmWmFkiVfd0trdRPyP7gkl3k 5qGs8TUMhPPRWQGCgetxaCZ/H3hbkQaQSurpNLohHhE7/LlKaHgDqkYCKJuaWO1+9PE7 n4eA== X-Received: by 10.194.216.100 with SMTP id op4mr21259588wjc.85.1450902782682; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.10.150] (94-39-192-53.adsl-ull.clienti.tiscali.it. [94.39.192.53]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u62sm30707695wmg.4.2015.12.23.12.33.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:33:01 -0800 (PST) To: Peter Crosthwaite , Andrew Baumann References: <1449187263-4604-1-git-send-email-Andrew.Baumann@microsoft.com> <1449208887-9564-1-git-send-email-Andrew.Baumann@microsoft.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <567B04FA.2030903@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:32:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::234 Cc: Peter Maydell , Stefan Weil , =?UTF-8?Q?Gr=c3=a9gory_ESTRADE?= , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , qemu-arm Subject: Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 1/8] bcm2835_sbm: add BCM2835 mailboxes X-BeenThere: qemu-arm@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org X-TUID: gjd9xQR4kal3 On 22/12/2015 00:33, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >>> >> >>> >> case 0x80..0x8c >> > >> > Woah! Is that standard C? >> > > Yes, its probably one of the more recent language standards though. > QEMU does use to more modern features liberally. It's actually "case 0x80 ... 0x8c:". >> Notice that this file comes from Linux. I know it's not pretty, but >> can we please keep it as-is, for comparison purposes? I'm not sure >> there's much value in cleaning it up locally... > > It looks very autogenerated and seems pretty nasty on the repetition. > > As implementers of the hardware, it is much rarer to need these > repetitious defs than the software users on the other side. "Do > something specific with CPU#3's Mbox#5" is going to appear in > software, but hardware implementers generally don't have a choice to > implement things specifically and it usually ends up being looped and > the exploded defs are never used. If there are only a handful of > genuinely single defs needed, can they be fished out? I see your point and I'm definitely in favor of rewriting headers from scratch when practical, but any cleanup made is a recipe for unwanted changes and bugs, especially if the source is full of repetitions. Paolo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57881) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBq5t-0003oP-6f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:33:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBq5s-0004pb-CD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:33:09 -0500 Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <1449187263-4604-1-git-send-email-Andrew.Baumann@microsoft.com> <1449208887-9564-1-git-send-email-Andrew.Baumann@microsoft.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <567B04FA.2030903@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:32:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/8] bcm2835_sbm: add BCM2835 mailboxes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Crosthwaite , Andrew Baumann Cc: Peter Maydell , Peter Crosthwaite , Stefan Weil , =?UTF-8?Q?Gr=c3=a9gory_ESTRADE?= , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , qemu-arm On 22/12/2015 00:33, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >>> >> >>> >> case 0x80..0x8c >> > >> > Woah! Is that standard C? >> > > Yes, its probably one of the more recent language standards though. > QEMU does use to more modern features liberally. It's actually "case 0x80 ... 0x8c:". >> Notice that this file comes from Linux. I know it's not pretty, but >> can we please keep it as-is, for comparison purposes? I'm not sure >> there's much value in cleaning it up locally... > > It looks very autogenerated and seems pretty nasty on the repetition. > > As implementers of the hardware, it is much rarer to need these > repetitious defs than the software users on the other side. "Do > something specific with CPU#3's Mbox#5" is going to appear in > software, but hardware implementers generally don't have a choice to > implement things specifically and it usually ends up being looped and > the exploded defs are never used. If there are only a handful of > genuinely single defs needed, can they be fished out? I see your point and I'm definitely in favor of rewriting headers from scratch when practical, but any cleanup made is a recipe for unwanted changes and bugs, especially if the source is full of repetitions. Paolo