Re: [PULL 04/23] include/exec: Split out exec/cpu-interrupt.h

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

On 2/4/25 20:46, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 4/2/25 03:17, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 8/3/25 23:58, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> Some of these bits are actually common to all cpus; while the
>>> reset have common reservations for target-specific usage.
>>> While generic code cannot know what the target-specific usage is,
>>> common code can know what to do with the bits, e.g. single-step.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>   include/exec/cpu-all.h       | 53 +--------------------------
>>>   include/exec/cpu-interrupt.h | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   include/exec/poison.h        | 13 -------
>>>   3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
>>>   create mode 100644 include/exec/cpu-interrupt.h
>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/include/exec/poison.h b/include/exec/poison.h
>>> index 35721366d7..8ed04b3108 100644
>>> --- a/include/exec/poison.h
>>> +++ b/include/exec/poison.h
>>> @@ -46,19 +46,6 @@
>>>   #pragma GCC poison TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_EXITTB
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_HALT
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_DEBUG
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_EXT_0
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_EXT_1
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_EXT_2
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_EXT_3
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_EXT_4
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_INT_0
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_INT_1
>>> -#pragma GCC poison CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_INT_2
>>
>> If I understood correctly yesterday's discussion, these
>> definitions are internal to target/ and shouldn't be used
>> by hw/ at all. If this is right, then we need to keep them
>> poisoned for hw/ code.
> 
> No.  They are used by generic code to mask CPU_INTERRUPT_TGT_EXT_* 
> during single-stepping.  We don't know what they mean, but they're all 
> external interrupts.

I'm wondering about CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD ... CPU_INTERRUPT_DEBUG.