Re: [Qemu-devel] [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v13 1/4] arm: Define macros for accessing system registers

[Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com>]

On 12/01/2016 02:59 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> 
> Should this be From: Andre?
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:16:39PM -0600, Wei Huang wrote:
>> This patch defines four macros to assist creating system register
>> accessors under both ARMv7 and AArch64:
>>    * DEFINE_GET_SYSREG32(name, ...)
>>    * DEFINE_SET_SYSREG32(name, ...)
>>    * DEFINE_GET_SYSREG64(name, ...)
>>    * DEFINE_SET_SYSREG64(name, ...)
>> These macros are translated to inline functions with consistent naming,
>> get_##name() and set_##name(), which can be used by C code directly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  lib/arm/asm/processor.h   | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  lib/arm64/asm/processor.h | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/processor.h b/lib/arm/asm/processor.h
>> index f25e7ee..3ca6b42 100644
>> --- a/lib/arm/asm/processor.h
>> +++ b/lib/arm/asm/processor.h
>> @@ -33,13 +33,40 @@ static inline unsigned long current_cpsr(void)
>>  
>>  #define current_mode() (current_cpsr() & MODE_MASK)
>>  
>> -static inline unsigned int get_mpidr(void)
>> -{
>> -	unsigned int mpidr;
>> -	asm volatile("mrc p15, 0, %0, c0, c0, 5" : "=r" (mpidr));
>> -	return mpidr;
>> +#define DEFINE_GET_SYSREG32(name, opc1, crn, crm, opc2)			\
>> +static inline uint32_t get_##name(void)					\
>> +{									\
>> +	uint32_t reg;							\
>> +	asm volatile("mrc p15, " #opc1 ", %0, " #crn ", " #crm ", "	\
>> +		     #opc2 : "=r" (reg));				\
>> +	return reg;							\
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define DEFINE_SET_SYSREG32(name, opc1, crn, crm, opc2)			\
>> +static inline void set_##name(uint32_t value)				\
>> +{									\
>> +	asm volatile("mcr p15, " #opc1 ", %0, " #crn ", " #crm ", "	\
>> +		     #opc2 :: "r" (value));				\
>                            ^ nit: no space here, checkpatch would complain

Which checkpatch script you are using? I didn't find one in
kvm-unit-tests. I tried kernel's checkpatch script, but it didn't
complain anything against this patch.

>> +}
>> +

<snip>