this allows to remove unneeded stubs for target/s390x.
Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>
---
hw/s390x/tod.c | 9 ++++++++-
hw/s390x/meson.build | 5 ++++-
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/s390x/tod.c b/hw/s390x/tod.c
index 3c2979175e..322732d7fd 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/tod.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/tod.c
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
#include "qemu/error-report.h"
#include "qemu/module.h"
#include "sysemu/kvm.h"
+#include "sysemu/tcg.h"
+#include "sysemu/qtest.h"
#include "migration/qemu-file-types.h"
#include "migration/register.h"
@@ -23,8 +25,13 @@ void s390_init_tod(void)
if (kvm_enabled()) {
obj = object_new(TYPE_KVM_S390_TOD);
- } else {
+ } else if (tcg_enabled()) {
obj = object_new(TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD);
+ } else if (qtest_enabled()) {
+ return;
+ } else {
+ warn_report("current accelerator not handled in s390_init_tod!");
+ return;
}
object_property_add_child(qdev_get_machine(), TYPE_S390_TOD, obj);
object_unref(obj);
diff --git a/hw/s390x/meson.build b/hw/s390x/meson.build
index 91495b5631..7f31f9e5d5 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/meson.build
+++ b/hw/s390x/meson.build
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ s390x_ss.add(files(
'sclp.c',
'sclpcpu.c',
'sclpquiesce.c',
- 'tod-qemu.c',
'tod.c',
))
s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
@@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
's390-stattrib-kvm.c',
'pv.c',
))
+s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files(
+ 'tod-qemu.c',
+))
+
s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_S390_CCW_VIRTIO', if_true: files('s390-virtio-ccw.c'))
s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TERMINAL3270', if_true: files('3270-ccw.c'))
s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_VFIO', if_true: files('s390-pci-vfio.c'))
--
2.26.2
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100
Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
> this allows to remove unneeded stubs for target/s390x.
This patch doesn't seem to remove any, though?
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>
> ---
> hw/s390x/tod.c | 9 ++++++++-
> hw/s390x/meson.build | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/tod.c b/hw/s390x/tod.c
> index 3c2979175e..322732d7fd 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/tod.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/tod.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
> #include "qemu/error-report.h"
> #include "qemu/module.h"
> #include "sysemu/kvm.h"
> +#include "sysemu/tcg.h"
> +#include "sysemu/qtest.h"
> #include "migration/qemu-file-types.h"
> #include "migration/register.h"
>
> @@ -23,8 +25,13 @@ void s390_init_tod(void)
>
> if (kvm_enabled()) {
> obj = object_new(TYPE_KVM_S390_TOD);
> - } else {
> + } else if (tcg_enabled()) {
> obj = object_new(TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD);
> + } else if (qtest_enabled()) {
> + return;
> + } else {
> + warn_report("current accelerator not handled in s390_init_tod!");
> + return;
I'm wondering whether this should be a fatal error.
> }
> object_property_add_child(qdev_get_machine(), TYPE_S390_TOD, obj);
> object_unref(obj);
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/meson.build b/hw/s390x/meson.build
> index 91495b5631..7f31f9e5d5 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/meson.build
> +++ b/hw/s390x/meson.build
> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ s390x_ss.add(files(
> 'sclp.c',
> 'sclpcpu.c',
> 'sclpquiesce.c',
> - 'tod-qemu.c',
> 'tod.c',
> ))
> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c',
> 'pv.c',
> ))
> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files(
> + 'tod-qemu.c',
Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c?
> +))
> +
> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_S390_CCW_VIRTIO', if_true: files('s390-virtio-ccw.c'))
> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TERMINAL3270', if_true: files('3270-ccw.c'))
> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_VFIO', if_true: files('s390-pci-vfio.c'))
Hi Cornelia,
On 3/31/21 1:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100
> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> this allows to remove unneeded stubs for target/s390x.
>
> This patch doesn't seem to remove any, though?
The next patch does... I'll split more the patches so it becomes clearer.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>
>> ---
>> hw/s390x/tod.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> hw/s390x/meson.build | 5 ++++-
>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/tod.c b/hw/s390x/tod.c
>> index 3c2979175e..322732d7fd 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/tod.c
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/tod.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
>> #include "qemu/error-report.h"
>> #include "qemu/module.h"
>> #include "sysemu/kvm.h"
>> +#include "sysemu/tcg.h"
>> +#include "sysemu/qtest.h"
>> #include "migration/qemu-file-types.h"
>> #include "migration/register.h"
>>
>> @@ -23,8 +25,13 @@ void s390_init_tod(void)
>>
>> if (kvm_enabled()) {
>> obj = object_new(TYPE_KVM_S390_TOD);
>> - } else {
>> + } else if (tcg_enabled()) {
>> obj = object_new(TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD);
>> + } else if (qtest_enabled()) {
>> + return;
>> + } else {
>> + warn_report("current accelerator not handled in s390_init_tod!");
>> + return;
>
> I'm wondering whether this should be a fatal error.
I would agree with that.
>
>> }
>> object_property_add_child(qdev_get_machine(), TYPE_S390_TOD, obj);
>> object_unref(obj);
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/meson.build b/hw/s390x/meson.build
>> index 91495b5631..7f31f9e5d5 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/meson.build
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/meson.build
>> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ s390x_ss.add(files(
>> 'sclp.c',
>> 'sclpcpu.c',
>> 'sclpquiesce.c',
>> - 'tod-qemu.c',
>> 'tod.c',
>> ))
>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
>> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
>> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c',
>> 'pv.c',
>> ))
>> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files(
>> + 'tod-qemu.c',
>
> Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c?
I think so.
>
>> +))
>> +
>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_S390_CCW_VIRTIO', if_true: files('s390-virtio-ccw.c'))
>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TERMINAL3270', if_true: files('3270-ccw.c'))
>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_VFIO', if_true: files('s390-pci-vfio.c'))
>
>
Will prepare a new version,
Thanks,
Claudio
On 4/19/21 11:11 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Hi Cornelia,
>
> On 3/31/21 1:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100
>> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>> this allows to remove unneeded stubs for target/s390x.
>>
>> This patch doesn't seem to remove any, though?
>
> The next patch does... I'll split more the patches so it becomes clearer.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>
>>> ---
>>> hw/s390x/tod.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>> hw/s390x/meson.build | 5 ++++-
>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/tod.c b/hw/s390x/tod.c
>>> index 3c2979175e..322732d7fd 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/tod.c
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/tod.c
>>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
>>> #include "qemu/error-report.h"
>>> #include "qemu/module.h"
>>> #include "sysemu/kvm.h"
>>> +#include "sysemu/tcg.h"
>>> +#include "sysemu/qtest.h"
>>> #include "migration/qemu-file-types.h"
>>> #include "migration/register.h"
>>>
>>> @@ -23,8 +25,13 @@ void s390_init_tod(void)
>>>
>>> if (kvm_enabled()) {
>>> obj = object_new(TYPE_KVM_S390_TOD);
>>> - } else {
>>> + } else if (tcg_enabled()) {
>>> obj = object_new(TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD);
>>> + } else if (qtest_enabled()) {
>>> + return;
>>> + } else {
>>> + warn_report("current accelerator not handled in s390_init_tod!");
>>> + return;
>>
>> I'm wondering whether this should be a fatal error.
>
> I would agree with that.
>
>>
>>> }
>>> object_property_add_child(qdev_get_machine(), TYPE_S390_TOD, obj);
>>> object_unref(obj);
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/meson.build b/hw/s390x/meson.build
>>> index 91495b5631..7f31f9e5d5 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/meson.build
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/meson.build
>>> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ s390x_ss.add(files(
>>> 'sclp.c',
>>> 'sclpcpu.c',
>>> 'sclpquiesce.c',
>>> - 'tod-qemu.c',
>>> 'tod.c',
>>> ))
>>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
>>> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
>>> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c',
>>> 'pv.c',
>>> ))
>>> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files(
>>> + 'tod-qemu.c',
>>
>> Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c?
>
> I think so.
Here we are a bit limited though by the fact that the object is currently called:
include/hw/s390x/tod.h:26:#define TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-qemu"
So there might be a compatibility issue in trying to make this consistent, which would mean to replace this with:
#define TYPE_TCG_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-tcg"
What do you think?
>
>>
>>> +))
>>> +
>>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_S390_CCW_VIRTIO', if_true: files('s390-virtio-ccw.c'))
>>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TERMINAL3270', if_true: files('3270-ccw.c'))
>>> s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_VFIO', if_true: files('s390-pci-vfio.c'))
>>
>>
>
> Will prepare a new version,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Claudio
>
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:12:48 +0200 Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote: > On 4/19/21 11:11 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: > > Hi Cornelia, > > > > On 3/31/21 1:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100 > >> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote: > >>> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files( > >>> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c', > >>> 'pv.c', > >>> )) > >>> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files( > >>> + 'tod-qemu.c', > >> > >> Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c? > > > > I think so. > > Here we are a bit limited though by the fact that the object is currently called: > > include/hw/s390x/tod.h:26:#define TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-qemu" > > So there might be a compatibility issue in trying to make this consistent, which would mean to replace this with: > > #define TYPE_TCG_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-tcg" > > What do you think? How visible is this? I don't think the TOD objects are instantiable by the user.
On 4/19/21 6:20 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:12:48 +0200 > Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote: > >> On 4/19/21 11:11 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >>> Hi Cornelia, >>> >>> On 3/31/21 1:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100 >>>> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote: > >>>>> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files( >>>>> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c', >>>>> 'pv.c', >>>>> )) >>>>> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files( >>>>> + 'tod-qemu.c', >>>> >>>> Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c? >>> >>> I think so. >> >> Here we are a bit limited though by the fact that the object is currently called: >> >> include/hw/s390x/tod.h:26:#define TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-qemu" >> >> So there might be a compatibility issue in trying to make this consistent, which would mean to replace this with: >> >> #define TYPE_TCG_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-tcg" >> >> What do you think? > > How visible is this? I don't think the TOD objects are instantiable by > the user. > I just remember we were very conservative with the object hierarchy on x86, personally I am fine with the change. I will add this change then, I'd ask for people with concerns about this to speak up: (Paolo?) Ciao, CLaudio
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:24:34 +0200 Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote: > On 4/19/21 6:20 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:12:48 +0200 > > Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote: > > > >> On 4/19/21 11:11 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: > >>> Hi Cornelia, > >>> > >>> On 3/31/21 1:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100 > >>>> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote: > > > >>>>> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files( > >>>>> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c', > >>>>> 'pv.c', > >>>>> )) > >>>>> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files( > >>>>> + 'tod-qemu.c', > >>>> > >>>> Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c? > >>> > >>> I think so. > >> > >> Here we are a bit limited though by the fact that the object is currently called: > >> > >> include/hw/s390x/tod.h:26:#define TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-qemu" > >> > >> So there might be a compatibility issue in trying to make this consistent, which would mean to replace this with: > >> > >> #define TYPE_TCG_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-tcg" > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > How visible is this? I don't think the TOD objects are instantiable by > > the user. > > > > I just remember we were very conservative with the object hierarchy on x86, personally I am fine with the change. > I will add this change then, I'd ask for people with concerns about this to speak up: > > (Paolo?) > > Ciao, > > CLaudio > It was more an argument against changing it, because most people won't see it anyway :)
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.