qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC v3 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: set POWER9_v1.0 as PO


From: Laurent Vivier
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC v3 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: set POWER9_v1.0 as POWER9 DD1
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:56:56 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1

On 04/07/2017 10:51, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:42:33 +0200
> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 03.07.2017 15:14, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_DD1 is 0x004E0100, so this is the POWER9 v1.0.
>>>
>>> When we run qemu on a POWER9 DD1 host, we must use either
>>> "-cpu host" or "-cpu POWER9", but in the latter case it fails with
>>>
>>>     Unable to find sPAPR CPU Core definition
>>>
>>> because POWER9 DD1 doesn't appear in the list of known CPUs.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes this by defining POWER9_v1.0 with POWER9 DD1
>>> PVR instead of CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_BASE. It also adds POWER_v2.0
>>> with POWER9 DD2 PVR to avoid to trigger kernel POWER9 DD1 workaround
>>> in TCG mode.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 5 ++++-
>>>  target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 6 ++++--
>>>  target/ppc/cpu-models.h | 1 +
>>>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
>>> index 9fb896b..00918a5 100644
>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
>>> @@ -249,8 +249,11 @@ static const char *spapr_core_models[] = {
>>>      /* POWER8NVL */
>>>      "POWER8NVL_v1.0",
>>>  
>>> -    /* POWER9 */
>>> +    /* POWER9 DD1 */
>>>      "POWER9_v1.0",
>>> +
>>> +    /* POWER9 DD2 */
>>> +    "POWER9_v2.0",  
>>
>> In case you re-spin, what about a more compact listing:
>>
>>     /* POWER9 */
>>     "POWER9_v1.0",
>>     "POWER9_v2.0",
>>
>> ?
>>
> 
> I second that but anyway:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kurz <address@hidden>
> 
>> Anyway, patch looks good to me, so:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> 

I agree, but as I was focused on the problem with "-cpu POWER9" I forgot
to update the first patch.

Thanks,
Laurent



reply via email to

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