From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fY0Mo-0006UN-16 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:39:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fY0Mk-0006C1-TK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:39:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 05:39:28 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20180627053846-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20180626135928.23950-1-clg@kaod.org> <20180627033321-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <1d70c0f9179990cd33d7c82c5190179e60ae4ce3.camel@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1d70c0f9179990cd33d7c82c5190179e60ae4ce3.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ppc/pnv: Add model for Power8 PHB3 PCIe Host bridge List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater , David Gibson , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Marcel Apfelbaum , Andrea Bolognani On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:38:17AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-27 at 03:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > + > > > +/* Extract field fname from val */ > > > +#define GETFIELD(fname, val) \ > > > + (((val) & fname##_MASK) >> fname##_LSH) > > > + > > > +/* Set field fname of oval to fval > > > + * NOTE: oval isn't modified, the combined result is returned > > > + */ > > > +#define SETFIELD(fname, oval, fval) \ > > > + (((oval) & ~fname##_MASK) | \ > > > + ((((typeof(oval))(fval)) << fname##_LSH) & fname##_MASK)) > > > + > > > > Pls don't make up macros like these. We can't have each device do it. > > So what ? We move the macros in a generic place ? These are MUCH better > than open-coding the masks & shifts and much less error prone. include/qemu/bitops.h has a ton of handy macros. > > > @@ -1031,6 +1110,7 @@ static Property pnv_chip_properties[] = { > > > DEFINE_PROP_UINT64("ram-size", PnvChip, ram_size, 0), > > > DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("nr-cores", PnvChip, nr_cores, 1), > > > DEFINE_PROP_UINT64("cores-mask", PnvChip, cores_mask, 0x0), > > > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("num-phbs", PnvChip, num_phbs, 1), > > > DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(), > > > }; > > > > How about instanciating each extra phb using -device? > > Seems better than teaching everyone about platform-specific > > options. > > It's about which PHBs are enabled, not which are instanciated, if I > understand Cedric changes ... > > This aims are implementing the POWER8 chip correctly, it has a fixed > number of PHBs per-chip at very specific XSCOM addresses, that the > firwmare knows about. > > Cheers, > Ben.