Am 13.03.2012 13:31, schrieb Igor Mitsyanko:
> On 03/10/2012 08:53 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.c b/target-arm/cpu.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..dabc094
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.c
[...]
>> +static void cpu_register(const ARMCPUInfo *info)
>> +{
>> + TypeInfo type = {
>> + .name = info->name,
>> + .parent = TYPE_ARM_CPU,
>> + .instance_size = sizeof(ARMCPU),
>> + .class_size = sizeof(ARMCPUClass),
>> + .class_init = arm_cpu_class_init,
>> + .class_data = (void *)info,
>> + };
>
> Are non-initialized members guaranteed to be zero here?
I thought so for the C99-style struct initialization... I never ran into
crashes while testing. Do we need static to be safe?
>> + type_register_static(&type);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Probably should be type_register() here in case these two will actually
> differ in the future.
My thinking was we don't need it here because the data (esp. strings)
are not dynamically allocated. By comparison, I used type_register() for
-cpudef in target-i386, I believe.
But I really guess it's a bug that they're just an alias right now! ;)
> If this information is of any help, we've got no problems when emulating
> ARM-based Exynos boards in QEMU with this whole patchset applied.
Thanks a lot for testing!
Have you thought about how to QOM'ify your boards? Mid-term I'd like to
see an "exynos4210" object with the CPUs on it - maybe "cpu[0]" and
"cpu[1]" child properties? Or "core[x]"? I had played with the sh7750 a
bit on my branch but like the arm926 it's a single-core.
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
