On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 13:27, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:27:04PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hi Eduardo,
> >
> > On 23/11/18 19:10, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > If you really want to do this and assign cluster_id
> > > automatically, please do it on realize, where it won't have
> > > unexpected side-effects after a simple `qom-list-properties` QMP
> > > command.
> >
> > This looks clean enough to me.
> > Do you prefer we don't use static auto_increment at all?
>
> I would prefer to avoid the static variable if possible, but I
> won't reject it if the alternatives make the API too complex to
> use.
I guess the alternative would be to require the cluster ID
to be a QOM property on the cluster object. Usage would then
be something like
object_initialize_child(OBJECT(s), "rpu-cluster", &s->rpu_cluster,
sizeof(s->rpu_cluster), TYPE_CPU_CLUSTER,
&error_abort, NULL);
object_property_set_int(OBJECT(s), 1, "cluster-id", &error_abort);
qdev_init_nofail(DEVICE(&s->rpu_cluster));
(ie one extra line setting the cluster ID explicitly).
SoC objects can probably reasonably assume that they are
the only SoC in the system, ie that they can just assign
cluster IDs themselves). If that turns out not to be true
we can make the SoC take a property to specify a cluster ID
base or something.
I guess if we've been bitten by cpu-ID auto-assignment
in the past, starting out with "user picks the cluster ID"
would be safer, and it's not too much pain at the callsite.
Plus it avoids the gdbstub changing its mind about which
order the cluster "processes" appear in if we refactor the
board code.
> In either case, I'd like to ensure the caveats of the cluster_id
> field are clearly documented: no guarantees about ordering or
> predictability, making it not appropriate for external
> interfaces.
The gdb stub is sort of an external interface, of course...
Luc: what are the requirements on boards using CPU cluster
objects? I assume these are both OK:
* does not use cluster objects at all
(the gdbstub puts all the CPUs in one process?)
* all CPUs created are in some CPU cluster
(the gdbstub uses one process per CPU cluster)
but what about
* some CPUs are created in a CPU cluster, but some
are "loose", not in any cluster at all
?
Is that just invalid, or do the "loose" CPUs end up in
a default cluster (gdbstub process), or do they get
one cluster each?
If it's invalid (which doesn't seem like a bad idea),
is there an assert somewhere so that getting it wrong
results in the board failing to start (ie a "make check"
failure) ?
thanks
-- PMM
