On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 03:41:06PM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> Nikunj A Dadhania <nik...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes:
> >
> >> [ Unknown signature status ]
> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:17:28PM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> >>> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
> >>>
> >>> The existing implementation remains same and ics-base is introduced.
> >>>
> >>> This will allow different implementations for the source controllers
> >>> such as the MSI support of PHB3 on Power8 which uses in-memory state
> >>> tables for example.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Nikunj A Dadhania <nik...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> hw/intc/xics.c | 101
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >>> hw/intc/xics_spapr.c | 36 ++++++++++--------
> >>> include/hw/ppc/xics.h | 11 +++++-
> >>> 3 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/hw/intc/xics.c b/hw/intc/xics.c
> >>> index 326d21f..e2aa48d 100644
> >>> --- a/hw/intc/xics.c
> >>> +++ b/hw/intc/xics.c
> >>> @@ -220,9 +220,32 @@ static const TypeInfo xics_common_info = {
> >>> #define XISR(ss) (((ss)->xirr) & XISR_MASK)
> >>> #define CPPR(ss) (((ss)->xirr) >> 24)
> >>>
> >>> -static void ics_reject(ICSState *ics, int nr);
> >>> -static void ics_resend(ICSState *ics);
> >>> -static void ics_eoi(ICSState *ics, int nr);
> >>> +static void ics_base_reject(ICSState *ics, uint32_t nr)
> >>
> >> AFICT these will actually work for any of the derived classes, since
> >> they call the function pointer. So I thin the original name was
> >> better than ics_base_*().
> >
> > Sure, will change.
>
> I had a look at this again, we will need to use ics_base_*(), same file
> has the implementation of ics_reject() for TYPE_ICS.
No, the ics_reject() plain names still work best for the generic
versions which call via the function pointers. Instead we should find
a new name for the TYPE_ICE implementations.
> BenH's patches had renamed the class implementation as ics_simple_*().
> Since we moved to using ICS_BASE, ICS and KVM_ICS, IMHO this seems to
> the appropriate names.
No. Using ics_base_*() for the generic versions is actively
misleading. Using good names for those is more important than what
would usually be consistent naming practice for the TYPE_ICS
implementation.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
