"Nicholas Piggin" <npig...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue May 2, 2023 at 3:00 PM AEST, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: >> >> >> On 5/2/23 10:07, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> > On Tue Apr 25, 2023 at 12:47 AM AEST, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: >> >> The bits in cr reg are grouped into eight 4-bit fields represented >> >> by env->crf[8] and the related calculations should be abstracted to >> >> keep the calling routines simpler to read. This is a step towards >> >> cleaning up the [h_enter|spapr_exit]_nested calls for better readability. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <hars...@linux.ibm.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de> >> >> --- >> >> hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 18 ++---------------- >> > >> > Could you either convert all callers, or do implementation and >> > conversion as separate patches. Preference for former if you can >> > be bothered. >> > >> > save_user_regs(), restore_user_regs(), gdb read/write register * 2, >> > kvm_arch_get/put_registers, monitor_get_ccr, at a quick glance. >> >> Sure, I can include other consumers as well in the patches. >> I usually prefer separate patches for implementation/conversion but >> since the implementation is a small change, I hope either approach is fine. > > Yeah one patch would be fine. > >> >> > >> >> target/ppc/cpu.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >> >> target/ppc/cpu.h | 2 ++ >> >> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >> >> index ec4def62f8..124cee5e53 100644 >> >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >> >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> >> diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu.c b/target/ppc/cpu.c >> >> index 1a97b41c6b..3b444e58b5 100644 >> >> --- a/target/ppc/cpu.c >> >> +++ b/target/ppc/cpu.c >> >> @@ -67,6 +67,23 @@ uint32_t ppc_get_vscr(CPUPPCState *env) >> >> return env->vscr | (sat << VSCR_SAT); >> >> } >> >> >> >> +void ppc_store_cr(CPUPPCState *env, uint64_t cr) >> > >> > Set is normal counterpart to get. Or load and store, but >> > I think set and get is probably better. >> > >> Sure, make sense. > > I did say that before realising the other functions there use as > much varied and inconsistent terminology as possible, sigh. > > I *think* ppc_get|set_reg() is the best naming. store is used a lot but > it means something else too, so set is better. But if you have strong > feelings another way I don't mind. >
+1 for get/set Best to save load/store for the code emulating the actual guest ld/st instructions.
