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

[Matheus K. Ferst]

On 15/08/2022 17:25, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> 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).

For this RFC, I created methods for CPUs that change the interrupt 
masking logic when cs->halted is set. If the way we split the 
interruption code in the following patches is acceptable, I'm planning 
to add methods for all CPUs and remove ppc_pending_interrupt_legacy in 
future versions of this patch series.

Thanks,
Matheus K. Ferst
Instituto de Pesquisas ELDORADO <http://www.eldorado.org.br/>
Analista de Software
Aviso Legal - Disclaimer <https://www.eldorado.org.br/disclaimer.html>