Re: [RFC PATCH 04/13] target/ppc: prepare to split ppc_interrupt_pending by excp_model

[Fabiano Rosas]

Matheus Ferst <matheus.ferst@eldorado.org.br> writes:

> Rename the method to ppc_interrupt_pending_legacy and create a new
> ppc_interrupt_pending that will call the appropriate interrupt masking
> method based on env->excp_model.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matheus Ferst <matheus.ferst@eldorado.org.br>
> ---
>  target/ppc/excp_helper.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
> index 8690017c70..59981efd16 100644
> --- a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
> +++ b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
> @@ -1678,7 +1678,7 @@ void ppc_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
>      powerpc_excp(cpu, cs->exception_index);
>  }
>  
> -static int ppc_pending_interrupt(CPUPPCState *env)
> +static int ppc_pending_interrupt_legacy(CPUPPCState *env)

Won't this code continue to be used for the older CPUs? If so, I don't
think the term legacy is appropriate. It ends up being dependent on
context and what people's definitions of "legacy" are.

(if this function is removed in a later patch, then that's ok).

>  {
>      bool async_deliver;
>  
> @@ -1790,6 +1790,14 @@ static int ppc_pending_interrupt(CPUPPCState *env)
>      return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int ppc_pending_interrupt(CPUPPCState *env)
> +{
> +    switch (env->excp_model) {
> +    default:
> +        return ppc_pending_interrupt_legacy(env);
> +    }
> +}
> +
>  static void ppc_hw_interrupt(CPUPPCState *env, int pending_interrupt)
>  {
>      PowerPCCPU *cpu = env_archcpu(env);