On 4 May 2012 11:54, Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> wrote: > Use one subsection for each feature. This means that we don't need to > bump the version field each time that a new feature gets introduced. > > Introduce cpsr_vmstate field, as I am not sure if I can "use" > uncached_cpsr for saving state. > > Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> > --- > target-arm/cpu.h | 5 +- > target-arm/machine.c | 344 > ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > 2 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 193 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h > index 9434902..37744c6 100644 > --- a/target-arm/cpu.h > +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h > @@ -236,6 +236,9 @@ typedef struct CPUARMState { > } cp[15]; > void *nvic; > const struct arm_boot_info *boot_info; > + > + /* Fields needed as intermediate for vmstate */ > + uint32_t cpsr_vmstate; > } CPUARMState;
I still think this is the wrong approach. We need to support "this is how you read/write this field" functions. See also target-alpha handling of the fpcr. -- PMM