From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41216)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1Rup7L-000431-KX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:46:12 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1Rup7F-0007PD-Qd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:46:11 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51459 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1Rup7F-0007Ov-LO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:46:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4F3162CD.9000804@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:43:41 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1328237992-14953-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1328237992-14953-9-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<CAFEAcA8nX_J8ftKa9-wrcOwNrxbjEcavjD9pHDke8_hQf1cb4w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8nX_J8ftKa9-wrcOwNrxbjEcavjD9pHDke8_hQf1cb4w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 08/21] target-arm: Move CPU feature
 flags out of CPUState
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 07.02.2012 18:28, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 3 February 2012 02:59, Andreas F=C3=A4rber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> +static void sa11xx_class_init(ARMCPUClass *k, const ARMCPUInfo *info)
>> +{
>> +    set_class_feature(k, ARM_FEATURE_STRONGARM);
>> +}
>=20
>>  static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] =3D {
>>     {
>>         .name =3D "arm926",
>>         .id =3D 0x41069265,
>> +        .features =3D ARM_FEATURE(V5) |
>> +                    ARM_FEATURE(VFP),
>>     },
>=20
>>     {
>>         .name =3D "sa1100",
>>         .id =3D 0x4401A11B,
>> +        .class_init =3D sa11xx_class_init,
>>     },
>=20
> So why are we handling some of these feature bits by setting them
> in .features, and some of them via a .class_init which sets the
> feature bit?

To avoid duplication. This corresponds to fall-throughs in the switch.

Eventually as suggested by you we would get rid of some of these
duplicate models and let the user (or an alias-like compatibility
mechanism) set the desired revision numbers on one base class via QOM
properties. Then those class_inits would no longer be needed.

Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC=
rnberg