Matheus Ferst <matheus.fe...@eldorado.org.br> writes: > Move the interrupt masking logic to a new method, ppc_pending_interrupt, > and only handle the interrupt processing in ppc_hw_interrupt. > > Signed-off-by: Matheus Ferst <matheus.fe...@eldorado.org.br> > --- > target/ppc/excp_helper.c | 228 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 141 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
<snip> > @@ -1884,15 +1915,38 @@ bool ppc_cpu_exec_interrupt(CPUState *cs, int > interrupt_request) > { > PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs); > CPUPPCState *env = &cpu->env; > + int pending_interrupt; I would give this a simpler name to avoid confusion with the other two pending_interrupt terms. > > - if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD) { > - ppc_hw_interrupt(env); > - if (env->pending_interrupts == 0) { > - cs->interrupt_request &= ~CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD; > - } > - return true; > + if ((interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD) == 0) { > + return false; > } > - return false; > + It seems we're assuming that after this point we certainly have some pending interrupt... > + pending_interrupt = ppc_pending_interrupt(env); > + if (pending_interrupt == 0) { ...but how then is this able to return 0? Could the function's name be made a bit clearer? Maybe interrupt = ppc_next_pending_interrupt or something to that effect. > + if (env->resume_as_sreset) { > + /* > + * This is a bug ! It means that has_work took us out of halt > + * without anything to deliver while in a PM state that requires > + * getting out via a 0x100 > + * > + * This means we will incorrectly execute past the power > management > + * instruction instead of triggering a reset. > + * > + * It generally means a discrepancy between the wakeup > conditions in > + * the processor has_work implementation and the logic in this > + * function. > + */ > + cpu_abort(env_cpu(env), > + "Wakeup from PM state but interrupt Undelivered"); This condition is BookS only. Perhaps it would be better to move it inside each of the processor-specific functions. And since you're merging has_work with pending_interrupts, can't you solve that issue earlier? Specifically the "has_work tooks us out of halt..." part. > + } > + return false; > + } > + > + ppc_hw_interrupt(env, pending_interrupt); Some verbs would be nice. ppc_deliver_interrupt? > + if (env->pending_interrupts == 0) { > + cpu_reset_interrupt(cs, CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD); > + } > + return true; > } > > #endif /* !CONFIG_USER_ONLY */