Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> writes:

> On 1/19/22 5:44 AM, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> 405 has no MSR_HV and EPR is BookE only so we can remove it all.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>> ---
>>   target/ppc/excp_helper.c | 37 -------------------------------------
>>   1 file changed, 37 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
>> index e98d783ecd..8fae8aa0be 100644
>> --- a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
>> +++ b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
>> @@ -472,44 +472,7 @@ static void powerpc_excp_40x(PowerPCCPU *cpu, int excp)
>>           msr |= env->error_code;
>>           break;
>>       case POWERPC_EXCP_EXTERNAL:  /* External input                         
>>   */
>> -    {
>> -        bool lpes0;
>> -
>> -        cs = CPU(cpu);
>> -
>> -        /*
>> -         * Exception targeting modifiers
>> -         *
>> -         * LPES0 is supported on POWER7/8/9
>> -         * LPES1 is not supported (old iSeries mode)
>> -         *
>> -         * On anything else, we behave as if LPES0 is 1
>> -         * (externals don't alter MSR:HV)
>> -         */
>> -#if defined(TARGET_PPC64)
>> -        if (excp_model == POWERPC_EXCP_POWER7 ||
>> -            excp_model == POWERPC_EXCP_POWER8 ||
>> -            excp_model == POWERPC_EXCP_POWER9 ||
>> -            excp_model == POWERPC_EXCP_POWER10) {
>> -            lpes0 = !!(env->spr[SPR_LPCR] & LPCR_LPES0);
>> -        } else
>> -#endif /* defined(TARGET_PPC64) */
>> -        {
>> -            lpes0 = true;
>> -        }
>> -
>> -        if (!lpes0) {
>> -            new_msr |= (target_ulong)MSR_HVB;
>> -            new_msr |= env->msr & ((target_ulong)1 << MSR_RI);
>> -            srr0 = SPR_HSRR0;
>> -            srr1 = SPR_HSRR1;
>> -        }
>> -        if (env->mpic_proxy) {
>> -            /* IACK the IRQ on delivery */
>> -            env->spr[SPR_BOOKE_EPR] = ldl_phys(cs->as, env->mpic_iack);
>> -        }
>>           break;
>> -    }
>
> Bare break?  Should this be reachable at all?
> Should it in fact be g_assert_not_reached()?

It should be reachable. It is a valid exception for this CPU. We just
don't have anything else to do to dispatch it aside from what is done in
the generic code outside the switch statement.

Reply via email to