On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:54:43 +0000 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 26 January 2018 at 15:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote: > > On 01/26/2018 11:33 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 26 January 2018 at 14:29, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> > >> wrote: > >>> Why not use arm_any_initfn() here? > >> > >> That function (and the 'any' cpu) are deliberately only > >> included in the linux-user binaries, not the system-emulation binaries. > > > > why not use the V8 features? > > What v8 features? > > >> (Also arm_any_initfn() only initializes userspace-visible stuff, it > >> doesn't provide ID register values etc for kernel-visible things.) > > > > I'd still use an unique arm_max_initfn() such > > > > // initializes userspace-visible stuff > > #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > > // initializes kernel-visible things > > #endif > > >>> Actually what seems cleaner is to move "any" features here, and kill the > >>> "any" cpu, using "max" for this purpose. > >> > >> We can't kill 'any', that would break back-compatibility > >> of command lines. > > > > and use an alias for 'any' -> 'max' or just I'd suggest to place easy any -> max compat hack into arm_cpu_class_by_name() > > > > { .name = "any", .initfn = arm_max_initfn }, /* backward compat */ > > Yes, we could probably do something similar to this. > > thanks > -- PMM >