On 10/12/22 12:45 AM, Eric Auger wrote:
On 10/5/22 00:47, Gavin Shan wrote:
On 10/4/22 6:41 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04 2022, Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
This introduces virt_get_high_memmap_enabled() helper, which returns
the pointer to vms->highmem_{redists, ecam, mmio}. The pointer will
be used in the subsequent patches.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com>
---
hw/arm/virt.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
index b0b679d1f4..59de7b78b5 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
@@ -1689,14 +1689,29 @@ static uint64_t
virt_cpu_mp_affinity(VirtMachineState *vms, int idx)
return arm_cpu_mp_affinity(idx, clustersz);
}
+static inline bool *virt_get_high_memmap_enabled(VirtMachineState
*vms,
+ int index)
+{
+ bool *enabled_array[] = {
+ &vms->highmem_redists,
+ &vms->highmem_ecam,
+ &vms->highmem_mmio,
+ };
+
+ assert(index - VIRT_LOWMEMMAP_LAST < ARRAY_SIZE(enabled_array));
I wonder whether we want an assert(ARRAY_SIZE(extended_memmap) ==
ARRAY_SIZE(enabled_array))? IIUC, we never want those two to get out of
sync?
Yeah, It makes sense to ensure both arrays synchronized. I will add
the extra check in next respin.
With Connie's suggestion this looks good to me.
What we need is actually like below because the array (extended_memmap)
starts from VIRT_LOWMEMMAP_LAST instead of zero. I'm adding the extra
check into v5, which will be posted shortly.
assert(ARRAY_SIZE(extended_memmap) - VIRT_LOWMEMMAP_LAST ==
ARRAY_SIZE(enabled_array));
+
+ return enabled_array[index - VIRT_LOWMEMMAP_LAST];
+}
+
Thanks,
Gavin
