> 2023年5月23日 11:01，Song Gao <gaos...@loongson.cn> 写道：
>
>
>
> 在 2023/5/23 上午11:22, Jiaxun Yang 写道:
[...]
>>
>>>
>> 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.
> Most of the code in hw/intc or hw/ uses property to distinguish between
> different devices, not TARGE_* macro.
They are the *same* device, with different way to handle IOCSR address space.
Another problem is casting CPUState with LOONGARCH_CPU() is something invalid on
MIPS, vice-versa. We are potentially introducing a security issue here.
I know nobody have done something like this before, but not necessarily to be a
bad idea.
I’ll introduce something like:
+#ifdef TARGET_LOONGARCH64
+static inline void *AddressSpace get_iocsr_as(int cpuid)
+{
+ CPUState *cs = qemu_get_cpu(cpuid);
+ LoongArchCPU *cpu = LOONGARCH_CPU(cs);
+
+ return &cpu->env.address_space_iocsr;
+}
+#endif
+
+#ifdef TARGET_MIPS64
+static inline void *AddressSpace get_iocsr_as(int cpuid)
+{
+ CPUState *cs = qemu_get_cpu(cpuid);
+ MIPSCPU *cpu = MIPS_CPU(cs);
+
+ return &cpu->env.iocsr.as;
+}
+#endif
Thanks
- Jiaxun
>
> I still think it is better to use property.
>
> Thanks.
> Song Gao
>>> All references to loongarch_ipi should also be changed.
>> Sure.
>>
>> Thanks
>> - Jiaxun
>
