Hi Cedric,
Thanks for your reviews.
On 25/03/25 20:04, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 3/25/25 12:23, Aditya Gupta wrote:
<...snip...>
@@ -238,6 +238,13 @@ static const TypeInfo
pnv_homer_power10_type_info = {
.parent = TYPE_PNV_HOMER,
.instance_size = sizeof(PnvHomer),
.class_init = pnv_homer_power10_class_init,
+ .class_base_init = pnv_homer_power10_class_init,
I didn't see that previously.
Why are you introducing new types for P11 if they are the same as
P10 ? Why not use them directly in the P11 chip instance ?
Cosmetic reasons only. The behavior is same for those models, p10 & p11,
just the typenames and description are different.
I can use p10 models instead of declaring these, only difference will be
that 'info qom-tree' in qemu will show p10 types for those models:
(qemu) info qom-tree
/homer (pnv-homer-POWER10)
/homer-chip0-memory[0] (memory-region)
/xscom-pba[0] (memory-region)
Will do it in v7 ?
Thanks,
- Aditya G
C.
+};
+
+static const TypeInfo pnv_homer_power11_type_info = {
+ .name = TYPE_PNV11_HOMER,
+ .parent = TYPE_PNV10_HOMER,
+ .instance_size = sizeof(PnvHomer),
};
static void pnv_homer_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
@@ -291,6 +298,7 @@ static void pnv_homer_register_types(void)
type_register_static(&pnv_homer_power8_type_info);
type_register_static(&pnv_homer_power9_type_info);
type_register_static(&pnv_homer_power10_type_info);
+ type_register_static(&pnv_homer_power11_type_info);
}
type_init(pnv_homer_register_types);
diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/pnv_homer.h b/include/hw/ppc/pnv_homer.h
index a6f2710fa16b..ab7b43f4c910 100644
--- a/include/hw/ppc/pnv_homer.h
+++ b/include/hw/ppc/pnv_homer.h
@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ DECLARE_INSTANCE_CHECKER(PnvHomer, PNV9_HOMER,
#define TYPE_PNV10_HOMER TYPE_PNV_HOMER "-POWER10"
DECLARE_INSTANCE_CHECKER(PnvHomer, PNV10_HOMER,
TYPE_PNV10_HOMER)
+#define TYPE_PNV11_HOMER TYPE_PNV_HOMER "-POWER11"
+DECLARE_INSTANCE_CHECKER(PnvHomer, PNV11_HOMER,
+ TYPE_PNV11_HOMER)
struct PnvHomer {
DeviceState parent;
