| Message ID | 56ba11cee61d769a9a2816fa990d472ab1480906.1517532021.git.alistair.francis@xilinx.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:42:05PM -0800, Alistair Francis wrote: > As cpu_type is not a user visible string let's convert the > valid_cpu_types to compare against cpu_model instead. This way we have a > user friendly string to report back. > > Once we have a cpu_type to cpu_model conversion this patch should be > reverted and we should use cpu_type instead. > > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> > --- > > hw/core/machine.c | 11 +++++------ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c > index cdc1163dc6..de5bac1c84 100644 > --- a/hw/core/machine.c > +++ b/hw/core/machine.c > @@ -776,13 +776,12 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine) > /* If the machine supports the valid_cpu_types check and the user > * specified a CPU with -cpu check here that the user CPU is supported. > */ > - if (machine_class->valid_cpu_types && machine->cpu_type) { > - ObjectClass *class = object_class_by_name(machine->cpu_type); > + if (machine_class->valid_cpu_types && machine->cpu_model) { > int i; > > for (i = 0; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) { > - if (object_class_dynamic_cast(class, > - machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i])) { > + if (!strcmp(machine->cpu_model, > + machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i])) { I would rename valid_cpu_types to valid_cpu_models to make the new semantics clearer. Anyway, I have bad and good news: The bad news is Igor already sent patches last week that remove MachineState::cpu_model, so this conflicts with his series. Now parse_cpu_model() will be the only place where the original CPU model name is available, but the function needs to work on *-user too. See: "[PATCH v3 23/25] Use cpu_create(type) instead of cpu_init(cpu_model)". The good news is that I think we can fix this very easily if validation is done at the same place where parse_cpu_model() is called. e.g.: current_machine->cpu_type = machine_class->default_cpu_type; if (cpu_model) { current_machine->cpu_type = parse_cpu_model(cpu_model); if (machine_class->valid_cpu_models) { ObjectClass *class = object_class_by_name(machine->cpu_type); int i; for (i = 0; machine_class->valid_cpu_models[i]; i++) { const char *valid_model = machine_class->valid_cpu_models[i]; ObjectClass *valid_class = cpu_class_by_name(machine->cpu_type, valid_model); if (object_class_dynamic_cast(class, object_class_get_name(valid_class))) { /* Valid CPU type, we're good to go */ break; } } if (!machine_class->valid_cpu_models[i]) { error_report("Invalid CPU model: %s", cpu_model); error_printf("The valid CPU models are: %s", machine_class->valid_cpu_models[0]); for (i = 1; machine_class->valid_cpu_models[i]; i++) { error_printf(", %s", machine_class->valid_cpu_models[i]); } error_printf("\n"); exit(1); } } } This can be done inside main(), or moved inside machine_run_board_init() if main() pass cpu_model as argument to the function. On either case, I think it's a good idea to do validation and printing of error messages closer to the code that parses the command-line options. This way we separate parsing/validation from initialization. > /* The user specificed CPU is in the valid field, we are > * good to go. > */ > @@ -792,8 +791,8 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine) > > if (!machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]) { > /* The user specified CPU is not valid */ > - error_report("Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type); > - error_printf("The valid types are: %s", > + error_report("Invalid CPU model: %s", machine->cpu_model); > + error_printf("The valid models are: %s", > machine_class->valid_cpu_types[0]); > for (i = 1; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) { > error_printf(", %s", machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]); > -- > 2.14.1 > >
diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c index cdc1163dc6..de5bac1c84 100644 --- a/hw/core/machine.c +++ b/hw/core/machine.c @@ -776,13 +776,12 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine) /* If the machine supports the valid_cpu_types check and the user * specified a CPU with -cpu check here that the user CPU is supported. */ - if (machine_class->valid_cpu_types && machine->cpu_type) { - ObjectClass *class = object_class_by_name(machine->cpu_type); + if (machine_class->valid_cpu_types && machine->cpu_model) { int i; for (i = 0; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) { - if (object_class_dynamic_cast(class, - machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i])) { + if (!strcmp(machine->cpu_model, + machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i])) { /* The user specificed CPU is in the valid field, we are * good to go. */ @@ -792,8 +791,8 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine) if (!machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]) { /* The user specified CPU is not valid */ - error_report("Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type); - error_printf("The valid types are: %s", + error_report("Invalid CPU model: %s", machine->cpu_model); + error_printf("The valid models are: %s", machine_class->valid_cpu_types[0]); for (i = 1; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) { error_printf(", %s", machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]);
As cpu_type is not a user visible string let's convert the valid_cpu_types to compare against cpu_model instead. This way we have a user friendly string to report back. Once we have a cpu_type to cpu_model conversion this patch should be reverted and we should use cpu_type instead. Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> --- hw/core/machine.c | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)