在 2023/5/23 上午11:22, Jiaxun Yang 写道:
2023年5月23日 02:25，Song Gao <gaos...@loongson.cn> 写道：
在 2023/5/22 下午9:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 写道:
On 22/5/23 13:47, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
2023年5月22日 04:52，Huacai Chen <chenhua...@kernel.org> 写道：
Hi, Jiaxun,
Rename loongarch_ipi to loongson_ipi? It will be shared by both MIPS
and LoongArch in your series.
Hi Huacai,
Thanks for the point, what’s the opinion from LoongArch mainatiners?
Or perhaps rename it as loong_ipi to reflect the nature that it’s shared
by MIPS based Loongson and LoongArch based Loongson?
I'm not a LoongArch maintainer, but a model named "loong_ipi" makes
sense to me.
Please add it to the two Virt machine sections in MAINTAINERS.
Hi Song,
'loonggson_ipi' is better, qemu doesn't have naming with 'loong' as prefix.
Thanks, I’ll take looongson_ipi then.
And patch2 should not use macros. Some attributes should be added to
distinguish between MIPS and LongArch.
By attribute do you mean property?
Yes.
If so I don’t see any necessity, the IP block
Is totally the same on MIPS and LoongArch. I’m guarding them out because
We have different way to get IOCSR address space on MIPS, which is due
to be implemented.
I can further abstract out a function to get IOCSR address space. But still,
I think the best way to differ those two architecture is using TARGET_* macros,
as it doesn’t make much sense to have unused code for another architecture
compiled.
Most of the code in hw/intc or hw/ uses property to distinguish between
different devices, not TARGE_* macro.
I still think it is better to use property.
Thanks.
Song Gao
All references to loongarch_ipi should also be changed.
Sure.
Thanks
- Jiaxun
