On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 04:03:47 -0500
Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Let's also move the clear reset function into the reset handler.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> target/s390x/cpu-qom.h | 1 +
> target/s390x/cpu.c | 58 +++++++++++++-----------------------------
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> @@ -453,6 +424,11 @@ static Property s390x_cpu_properties[] = {
> DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST()
> };
>
> +static void s390_cpu_reset_clear(CPUState *s)
> +{
> + return s390_cpu_reset(s, S390_CPU_RESET_CLEAR);
> +}
> +
> static void s390_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> {
> S390CPUClass *scc = S390_CPU_CLASS(oc);
> @@ -469,7 +445,7 @@ static void s390_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void
> *data)
> scc->load_normal = s390_cpu_load_normal;
> #endif
> scc->reset = s390_cpu_reset;
> - cc->reset = s390_cpu_full_reset;
> + cc->reset = s390_cpu_reset_clear;
> cc->class_by_name = s390_cpu_class_by_name,
> cc->has_work = s390_cpu_has_work;
> #ifdef CONFIG_TCG
One thing I liked about the previous naming is that it is more obvious
that the clear reset is actually the full reset of a cpu. Not sure if
keeping that is better than matching the function name to the name of
the reset being performed. Opinions?
