On 11.12.2012, at 18:35, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 02:10:14 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 11.12.2012, at 01:36, Scott Wood <address@hidden>
>> > On 12/08/2012 07:44:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >> The OpenPIC allows MSI access through shared MSI registers.
>> >> them for the MPC8544 MPIC, so we can support MSIs.
>> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <address@hidden>
>> >> ---
>> >> hw/openpic.c | 150
>> >> 1 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>> >> diff --git a/hw/openpic.c b/hw/openpic.c
>> >> index f2f152f..f71d668 100644
>> >> --- a/hw/openpic.c
>> >> +++ b/hw/openpic.c
>> >> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>> >> #include "pci.h"
>> >> #include "openpic.h"
>> >> #include "sysbus.h"
>> >> +#include "msi.h"
>> >> //#define DEBUG_OPENPIC
>> >> @@ -52,6 +53,7 @@
>> >> #define MAX_TMR 4
>> >> #define VECTOR_BITS 8
>> >> #define MAX_IPI 4
>> >> +#define MAX_MSI 8
>> >> #define VID 0x03 /* MPIC version ID */
>> >> /* OpenPIC capability flags */
>> >> @@ -62,6 +64,8 @@
>> >> #define OPENPIC_GLB_REG_SIZE 0x10F0
>> >> #define OPENPIC_TMR_REG_START 0x10F0
>> >> #define OPENPIC_TMR_REG_SIZE 0x220
>> >> +#define OPENPIC_MSI_REG_START 0x1600
>> >> +#define OPENPIC_MSI_REG_SIZE 0x200
>> >> #define OPENPIC_SRC_REG_START 0x10000
>> >> #define OPENPIC_SRC_REG_SIZE (MAX_IRQ * 0x20)
>> >> #define OPENPIC_CPU_REG_START 0x20000
>> >> @@ -126,6 +130,12 @@
>> >> #define IDR_P1_SHIFT 1
>> >> #define IDR_P0_SHIFT 0
>> >> +#define MSIIR_OFFSET 0x140
>> >> +#define MSIIR_SRS_SHIFT 29
>> >> +#define MSIIR_SRS_MASK (0x7 << MSIIR_SRS_SHIFT)
>> >> +#define MSIIR_IBS_SHIFT 24
>> >> +#define MSIIR_IBS_MASK (0x1f << MSIIR_IBS_SHIFT)
>> > FWIW, if you want to model newer MPICs such as on p4080, they
have multiple banks of MSIs, so you may not want to hardcode one bank.
>> The OpenPIC code was suffering a lot from attempts to generalize
different implementations without implementing them.
>> If we want to add support for p4080 MPICs later, we add a new
model to the emulation and make the nr of msi banks a parameter, like
the patch set does for all the other raven/mpc8544 differences. That
way we don't get into the current mess of a halfway accurate
emulation unless we really want it.
> So because the old code made a mess of it, we're saying
"abstraction is bad" in general?
No, because the old code messed up abstraction, I would like to move
to a non-abstract level and then start abstracting at the correct
layer. What that correct layer is is still up for discussion :).
> All I'm saying is this should be done with a runtime data structure
(of which there could be more than one) rather than #defines.
Yeah, and my argument was that this should be introduced as part of a
new model. But if it makes you happy I can of course also make it
generic right now, without a user, which means we can't even test
whether the generalization works, which means we might screw it up