qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v3 2/2] target-ppc: Implement rtas_ge


From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v3 2/2] target-ppc: Implement rtas_get_sysparm(PROCESSOR_MODULE_INFO)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:42:44 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

David Gibson address@hidden wrote:
| > Should we walk the /proc/device-tree/cpus/ tree and count only dirs with
| > device-type "cpu" (rather than relying on the pattern PowerPC,POWER*)?
| 
| Yes, I think you'll have to.
| 
Ok. Are we ok with the xscom check I have (copied below):

+static int kvmppc_count_sockets_chips_dt(int *num_sockets, int *num_chips)
+{
+    const char *chip_pattern = "/proc/device-tree/address@hidden/ibm,chip-id";
+    const char *module_pattern = 
"/proc/device-tree/address@hidden/ibm,hw-module-id";

---

I am not sure of a reliable way to detect number of chips besides the
xscom. I do see that sysfs has node entries:

        for i in `ls -d /sys/bus/cpu/devices/cpu*`; 
        > do
        > basename $i/node*
        > done | sort | uniq
        node0
        node1
        node16
        node17

which seems to correspond to

        $ lsprop /proc/device-tree/address@hidden/ibm,chip-id
        /proc/device-tree/address@hidden/ibm,chip-id
                         00000000
        /proc/device-tree/address@hidden/ibm,chip-id
                         00000001
        /proc/device-tree/address@hidden/ibm,chip-id
                         00000010 (16)
        /proc/device-tree/address@hidden/ibm,chip-id
                         00000011 (17)

but is that reliable?
> +
| > | 
| > | In a number of ways I'd actually prefer to move to /cpus/address@hidden in
| > | general, since that follows the OF generic names recommendation we
| > | follow for most other nodes.
| > 
| > Do you mean rename '/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,address@hidden' to
| > /proc/device-tree/cpus/address@hidden
| 
| Yes.  This is a firmware matter, so it's not something that can simply
| be changed everywhere, but it's the approach that I'd prefer to
| encourage for people making future machines and firmwares.

Sure. ppc64_cpu also seems to rely on '/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC'
to count cores present and maybe there are other utilities that would
need to be updated.

Sukadev




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]