Re: [PATCH 08/11] ppc/pnv: turn chip8->phbs[] into a PnvPHB3* array

[Cédric Le Goater]

On 6/14/22 17:39, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> On 6/14/22 06:53, Frederic Barrat wrote:
> > On 13/06/2022 17:44, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > When enabling user created PHBs (a change reverted by commit 9c10d86fee)
> > > we were handling PHBs created by default versus by the user in different
> > > manners. The only difference between these PHBs is that one will have a
> > > valid phb3->chip that is assigned during pnv_chip_power8_realize(),
> > > while the user created needs to search which chip it belongs to.
> > >
> > > Aside from that there shouldn't be any difference. Making the default
> > > PHBs behave in line with the user created ones will make it easier to
> > > re-introduce them later on. It will also make the code easier to follow
> > > since we are dealing with them in equal manner.
> > >
> > > The first step is to turn chip8->phbs[] into a PnvPHB3 pointer array.
> > > This will allow us to assign user created PHBs into it later on. The way
> > > we initilize the default case is now more in line with that would happen
> > > with the user created case: the object is created, parented by the chip
> > > because pnv_xscom_dt() relies on it, and then assigned to the array.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> >
> >
> > This patch is more prep work for the user-created device instead of general 
> > cleanup like the previous ones, but I don't see anything wrong with it. So:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.ibm.com>
>
>
> I've been thinking about it and I guess I could do better with this
> and the proxy pnv-phb series that is already in v2. What I'm thinking
> is:
>
> - crop patches 8-11 from this series. Patches 1-7 would be the prep cleanup
> series;
>
> - split the pnv-phb series in two:
>
>    - first series will just introduce the pnv-phb devices and consolidate the
> root ports. We're going to deal just with default devices. No consideration
> about future user-created devices will be made;

Yes. From what I have read, this looks very feasible with a v2.

Thanks,

C.

>    - a second series would then re-introduce user creatable phbs and root ports.
> Patches 8-11 of this series would be handled in this second patch set since it's
> closely related to user devices.
>
>
> Does that sound fair?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
> >    Fred
> >
> >
> >
> > >   hw/ppc/pnv.c         | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> > >   include/hw/ppc/pnv.h |  6 +++++-
> > >   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/pnv.c b/hw/ppc/pnv.c
> > > index 5e3323e950..6ce9e94e05 100644
> > > --- a/hw/ppc/pnv.c
> > > +++ b/hw/ppc/pnv.c
> > > @@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ static void pnv_chip_power8_pic_print_info(PnvChip *chip, 
> > > Monitor *mon)
> > >       ics_pic_print_info(&chip8->psi.ics, mon);
> > >       for (i = 0; i < chip8->num_phbs; i++) {
> > > -        PnvPHB3 *phb3 = &chip8->phbs[i];
> > > +        PnvPHB3 *phb3 = chip8->phbs[i];
> > >           pnv_phb3_msi_pic_print_info(&phb3->msis, mon);
> > >           ics_pic_print_info(&phb3->lsis, mon);
> > > @@ -1149,7 +1149,16 @@ static void pnv_chip_power8_instance_init(Object *obj)
> > >       chip8->num_phbs = pcc->num_phbs;
> > >       for (i = 0; i < chip8->num_phbs; i++) {
> > > -        object_initialize_child(obj, "phb[*]", &chip8->phbs[i], TYPE_PNV_PHB3);
> > > +        PnvPHB3 *phb3 = PNV_PHB3(object_new(TYPE_PNV_PHB3));
> > > +
> > > +        /*
> > > +         * We need the chip to parent the PHB to allow the DT
> > > +         * to build correctly (via pnv_xscom_dt()).
> > > +         *
> > > +         * TODO: the PHB should be parented by a PEC device.
> > > +         */
> > > +        object_property_add_child(obj, "phb[*]", OBJECT(phb3));
> > > +        chip8->phbs[i] = phb3;
> > >       }
> > >   }
> > > @@ -1278,7 +1287,7 @@ static void pnv_chip_power8_realize(DeviceState *dev, 
> > > Error **errp)
> > >       /* PHB3 controllers */
> > >       for (i = 0; i < chip8->num_phbs; i++) {
> > > -        PnvPHB3 *phb = &chip8->phbs[i];
> > > +        PnvPHB3 *phb = chip8->phbs[i];
> > >           object_property_set_int(OBJECT(phb), "index", i, &error_fatal);
> > >           object_property_set_int(OBJECT(phb), "chip-id", chip->chip_id,
> > > @@ -1963,7 +1972,7 @@ static ICSState *pnv_ics_get(XICSFabric *xi, int irq)
> > >           }
> > >           for (j = 0; j < chip8->num_phbs; j++) {
> > > -            pnv_ics_get_phb_ics(&chip8->phbs[j], &args);
> > > +            pnv_ics_get_phb_ics(chip8->phbs[j], &args);
> > >               if (args.ics) {
> > >                   return args.ics;
> > > @@ -1996,7 +2005,7 @@ static void pnv_ics_resend(XICSFabric *xi)
> > >           Pnv8Chip *chip8 = PNV8_CHIP(pnv->chips[i]);
> > >           for (j = 0; j < chip8->num_phbs; j++) {
> > > -            PnvPHB3 *phb3 = &chip8->phbs[j];
> > > +            PnvPHB3 *phb3 = chip8->phbs[j];
> > >               ics_resend(&phb3->lsis);
> > >               ics_resend(ICS(&phb3->msis));
> > > diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/pnv.h b/include/hw/ppc/pnv.h
> > > index 033890a23f..11f1089289 100644
> > > --- a/include/hw/ppc/pnv.h
> > > +++ b/include/hw/ppc/pnv.h
> > > @@ -80,7 +80,11 @@ struct Pnv8Chip {
> > >       PnvHomer     homer;
> > >   #define PNV8_CHIP_PHB3_MAX 4
> > > -    PnvPHB3      phbs[PNV8_CHIP_PHB3_MAX];
> > > +    /*
> > > +     * The array is used to allow quick access to the phbs by
> > > +     * pnv_ics_get_child() and pnv_ics_resend_child().
> > > +     */
> > > +    PnvPHB3      *phbs[PNV8_CHIP_PHB3_MAX];
> > >       uint32_t     num_phbs;
> > >       XICSFabric    *xics;