[v2,KVM,1/1] kvm:ppc: enable doorbell exception with CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL

CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is enough to cover all variants.

Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

On 07.05.2013, at 12:23, Tiejun Chen wrote:

> CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is enough to cover all variants.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c |    2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> index 1020119..62d4ece 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ static void kvmppc_restart_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> 		kvmppc_fill_pt_regs(&regs);
> 		timer_interrupt(&regs);
> 		break;
> -#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL)

The same question still holds. How is this an improvement over the previous code? Does this fix any issues for you? Is this just a coding style cleanup?


Alex

> 	case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DOORBELL:
> 		kvmppc_fill_pt_regs(&regs);
> 		doorbell_exception(&regs);
> -- 
> 1.7.9.5
>

On 05/10/2013 01:14:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 07.05.2013, at 12:23, Tiejun Chen wrote:
> 
> > CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is enough to cover all variants.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c |    2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> > index 1020119..62d4ece 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> > @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ static void kvmppc_restart_interrupt(struct  
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > 		kvmppc_fill_pt_regs(&regs);
> > 		timer_interrupt(&regs);
> > 		break;
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64)
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL)
> 
> The same question still holds. How is this an improvement over the  
> previous code? Does this fix any issues for you? Is this just a  
> coding style cleanup?

This is an improvement because CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is what controls  
whether the function that is called inside the ifdef exists.

-Scott

On 10.05.2013, at 20:17, Scott Wood wrote:

> On 05/10/2013 01:14:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 07.05.2013, at 12:23, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>> > CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is enough to cover all variants.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
>> > ---
>> > arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c |    2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
>> > index 1020119..62d4ece 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
>> > @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ static void kvmppc_restart_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> > 		kvmppc_fill_pt_regs(&regs);
>> > 		timer_interrupt(&regs);
>> > 		break;
>> > -#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64)
>> > +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL)
>> The same question still holds. How is this an improvement over the previous code? Does this fix any issues for you? Is this just a coding style cleanup?
> 
> This is an improvement because CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is what controls whether the function that is called inside the ifdef exists.

Aha! Now that's a good reason. Tiejun, please adjust your patch description accordingly.


Alex