From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42121)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RHYt2-0001Te-S1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:33:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RHYt0-00079R-QS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:33:08 -0400
Received: from fmmailgate05.web.de ([217.72.192.243]:39712)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RHYt0-00079B-Jo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:33:06 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA29BE0.8050307@web.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:33:04 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1317581808-9784-1-git-send-email-andreas.faerber@web.de>
	<1317637971-19296-1-git-send-email-andreas.faerber@web.de>
	<CAFEAcA__ZNV4ebvsHZNaZwvFxPVgA=SLWbXWGV6Ny4+s5DWnbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA__ZNV4ebvsHZNaZwvFxPVgA=SLWbXWGV6Ny4+s5DWnbA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: andreas.faerber@web.de
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Tidy up ARM1136 CPUID naming
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Andrzej Zaborowski <andrew@openedhand.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 22.10.2011 12:20, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 3 October 2011 11:32, Andreas F=C3=A4rber <andreas.faerber@web.de> w=
rote:
>> -#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136     0x4117b363
>> -#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R2  0x4107b362
>> +#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1P3 0x4117b363
>> +#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0P2 0x4107b362
>=20
> I don't think the patchlevels are important enough to
> memorialise in the constant names. The important
> distinction in behaviour is between the r0 and r1, so
> I think that ARM1136_R0 vs _R1 would be better.

Would you be okay if we do the following?

#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0 ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0P2
#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1 ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1P3

My point is that the number is actually hardcoded in there, whatever we
name the constant. ARM1136 or ARM1136_R0 gives the impression of a more
generic value.

Masking would be the only way to have generic code there and I still
haven't figured out how to do that sensibly without breaking up the
whole switch. For now I have a patch cooking for CPUID preservation that
I'll submit shortly.

Andreas