[PATCH v5 2/2] powerpc: Fix compile issue with force DAWR

[Michael Neuling]

On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 18:28 +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> Le 04/06/2019 à 05:00, Michael Neuling a écrit :
> > If you compile with KVM but without CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT you fail
> > at linking with:
> >    arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.o:(.text+0x708): undefined
> > reference to `dawr_force_enable'
> > 
> > This was caused by commit c1fe190c0672 ("powerpc: Add force enable of
> > DAWR on P9 option").
> > 
> > This moves a bunch of code around to fix this. It moves a lot of the
> > DAWR code in a new file and creates a new CONFIG_PPC_DAWR to enable
> > compiling it.
> 
> After looking at all this once more, I'm just wondering: why are we 
> creating stuff specific to DAWR ?
> 
> In the old days, we only add DABR, and everything was named on DABR.
> When DAWR was introduced some years ago we renamed stuff like do_dabr() 
> to do_break() so that we could regroup things together. And now we are 
> taking dawr() out of the rest. Why not keep dabr() stuff and dawr() 
> stuff all together in something dedicated to breakpoints, and try to 
> regroup all breakpoint stuff in a single place ? I see some 
> breakpointing stuff done in kernel/process.c and other things done in 
> hw_breakpoint.c, to common functions call from one file to the other, 
> preventing GCC to fully optimise, etc ...
> 
> Also, behing this thinking, I have the idea that we could easily 
> implement 512 bytes breakpoints on the 8xx too. The 8xx have neither 
> DABR nor DAWR, but is using a set of comparators. And as you can see in 
> the 8xx version of __set_dabr() in kernel/process.c, we emulate the DABR 
> behaviour by setting two comparators. By using the same comparators with 
> a different setup, we should be able to implement breakpoints on larger 
> ranges of address.

Christophe

I agree that their are opportunities to refactor this code and I appreciate your
efforts in making this code better but... 

We have a problem here of not being able to compile an odd ball case that almost
no one ever hits (it was just an odd mpe CI case). We're up to v5 of a simple
fix which is just silly. 

So let's get this fix in and move on to the whole bunch of refactoring we can do
in this code which is already documented in the github issue tracking.

Regards,
Mikey