On 9/19/23 09:28, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 9/18/23 20:28, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
Introduce a helper routine defining one CPU device node to fix this
warning :
../hw/ppc/spapr.c: In function ‘spapr_dt_cpus’:
../hw/ppc/spapr.c:812:19: warning: declaration of ‘cs’ shadows a previous
local [-Wshadow=compatible-local]
812 | CPUState *cs = rev[i];
| ^~
../hw/ppc/spapr.c:786:15: note: shadowed declaration is here
786 | CPUState *cs;
| ^~
Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org>
---
hw/ppc/spapr.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
index de3c616b4637..d89f0fd496b6 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
@@ -780,6 +780,26 @@ static void spapr_dt_cpu(CPUState *cs, void *fdt, int
offset,
pcc->lrg_decr_bits)));
}
+static void spapr_dt_one_cpu(void *fdt, SpaprMachineState *spapr, CPUState *cs,
+ int cpus_offset)
+{
+ PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs);
+ int index = spapr_get_vcpu_id(cpu);
+ DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_GET_CLASS(cs);
+ g_autofree char *nodename = NULL;
+ int offset;
+
+ if (!spapr_is_thread0_in_vcore(spapr, cpu)) {
+ return;
+ }
+
+ nodename = g_strdup_printf("%s@%x", dc->fw_name, index);
+ offset = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, cpus_offset, nodename);
+ _FDT(offset);
+ spapr_dt_cpu(cs, fdt, offset, spapr);
+}
+
+
static void spapr_dt_cpus(void *fdt, SpaprMachineState *spapr)
{
CPUState **rev;
@@ -809,21 +829,7 @@ static void spapr_dt_cpus(void *fdt, SpaprMachineState
*spapr)
}
for (i = n_cpus - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
- CPUState *cs = rev[i];
- PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs);
- int index = spapr_get_vcpu_id(cpu);
- DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_GET_CLASS(cs);
- g_autofree char *nodename = NULL;
- int offset;
-
- if (!spapr_is_thread0_in_vcore(spapr, cpu)) {
- continue;
- }
-
- nodename = g_strdup_printf("%s@%x", dc->fw_name, index);
- offset = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, cpus_offset, nodename);
- _FDT(offset);
- spapr_dt_cpu(cs, fdt, offset, spapr);
+ spapr_dt_one_cpu(fdt, spapr, rev[i], cpus_offset);
Do we want to replace the call to spapr_dt_cpu in
spapr_core_dt_populate() with the _one_ as well?
Not sure about the implication of additional instructions there.
yeah may be we could rework spapr_dt_one_cpu() and spapr_core_dt_populate()
in a single routine. They are similar. It can come later.
Also, could this code insider wrapper become part of spapr_dt_cpu() itself?
If can't, do we want a better renaming of wrapper here?
I am open to proposal :)
Thanks
C.
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <hars...@linux.ibm.com>
}
g_free(rev);
