> 2023年5月23日 02:25，Song Gao <gaos...@loongson.cn> 写道：
>
>
>
> 在 2023/5/22 下午9:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 写道:
>> On 22/5/23 13:47, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2023年5月22日 04:52，Huacai Chen <chenhua...@kernel.org> 写道：
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Jiaxun,
>>>>
>>>> Rename loongarch_ipi to loongson_ipi? It will be shared by both MIPS
>>>> and LoongArch in your series.
>>>
>>> Hi Huacai,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the point, what’s the opinion from LoongArch mainatiners?
>>>
>>> Or perhaps rename it as loong_ipi to reflect the nature that it’s shared
>>> by MIPS based Loongson and LoongArch based Loongson?
>>
>> I'm not a LoongArch maintainer, but a model named "loong_ipi" makes
>> sense to me.
>>
>> Please add it to the two Virt machine sections in MAINTAINERS.
Hi Song,
>>
> 'loonggson_ipi' is better, qemu doesn't have naming with 'loong' as prefix.
Thanks, I’ll take looongson_ipi then.
>
> And patch2 should not use macros. Some attributes should be added to
> distinguish between MIPS and LongArch.
By attribute do you mean property? If so I don’t see any necessity, the IP block
Is totally the same on MIPS and LoongArch. I’m guarding them out because
We have different way to get IOCSR address space on MIPS, which is due
to be implemented.
I can further abstract out a function to get IOCSR address space. But still,
I think the best way to differ those two architecture is using TARGET_* macros,
as it doesn’t make much sense to have unused code for another architecture
compiled.
>
> All references to loongarch_ipi should also be changed.
Sure.
Thanks
- Jiaxun
>
> Thanks.
> Song Gao
