Re: [RFC v1 06/38] target/arm: split off cpu-softmmu.c

[Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>]

On 2/22/21 6:29 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> 
> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> writes:
> 
>> From: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@centriq4.arch.suse.de>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>
>> ---
>>  target/arm/internals.h   |   9 ++-
>>  target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  target/arm/cpu.c         |  95 ---------------------------
>>  target/arm/meson.build   |   1 +
>>  4 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c
>>
>> diff --git a/target/arm/internals.h b/target/arm/internals.h
>> index 6384461177..6589b63ebc 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/internals.h
>> +++ b/target/arm/internals.h
>> @@ -1196,4 +1196,11 @@ static inline uint64_t useronly_maybe_clean_ptr(uint32_t desc, uint64_t ptr)
>>      return ptr;
>>  }
>>  
>> -#endif
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>> +void arm_cpu_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq, int level);
>> +void arm_cpu_kvm_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq, int level);
>> +bool arm_cpu_virtio_is_big_endian(CPUState *cs);
>> +uint64_t a15_l2ctlr_read(CPUARMState *env, const ARMCPRegInfo *ri);
>> +#endif /* !CONFIG_USER_ONLY */
>> +
>> +#endif /* TARGET_ARM_INTERNALS_H */
>> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c b/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..263d1fc588
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/target/arm/cpu-softmmu.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
>> +/*
>> + * QEMU ARM CPU
> 
> I guess apropos the discussion earlier it's really cpu-sysemu.c and we
> could expand the header comment.
> 
>   QEMU ARM CPU - Helpers for system emulation and KVM only
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Otherwise:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> 

Should I rename all *softmmu in the series to "sysemu"?

I wonder if we should take the issue of sysemu/system/softmmu topic into a separate series.
Currently basically starting from the build system already, "softmmu", sysemu and system are treated as a single thing, and the convention from build system and directories seems to be "softmmu",
while from the header files we get "sysemu/".

I agree that this is not a sufficient model to account for the new feature that Richard wants to develop,
I just suggest we could also consider tackling this separately, with a pass through the whole code, gathering more input in the context of a dedicated series.

What do you think? Also Paolo, any comments, since softmmu is all over meson?

Ciao,

Claudio