qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 4/4] target/i386: Update CMPLegacy handling for Zhaoxin and V


From: Xiaoyao Li
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] target/i386: Update CMPLegacy handling for Zhaoxin and VIA CPUs
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:19:05 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Ewan Hai wrote:
On 7/3/24 10:49, Xiaoyao Li wrote:

On 6/25/2024 5:19 PM, EwanHai wrote:
Zhaoxin and VIA CPUs handle the CMPLegacy bit in the same way
as Intel CPUs. This patch simplifies the existing logic by
using the IS_XXX_CPU macro and includes checks for Zhaoxin
and VIA vendors to align their behavior with Intel.

Signed-off-by: EwanHai <ewanhai-oc@zhaoxin.com>
---
  target/i386/cpu.c | 6 +++---
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c
index 50edff077e..0836416617 100644
--- a/target/i386/cpu.c
+++ b/target/i386/cpu.c
@@ -6945,9 +6945,9 @@ void cpu_x86_cpuid(CPUX86State *env, uint32_t index, uint32_t count,
           * So don't set it here for Intel to make Linux guests happy.
           */
          if (threads_per_pkg > 1) {
-            if (env->cpuid_vendor1 != CPUID_VENDOR_INTEL_1 ||
-                env->cpuid_vendor2 != CPUID_VENDOR_INTEL_2 ||
-                env->cpuid_vendor3 != CPUID_VENDOR_INTEL_3) {
+            if (!IS_INTEL_CPU(env) &&
+                !IS_ZHAOXIN_CPU(env) &&
+                !IS_VIA_CPU(env)) {

it seems you added ! by mistake.

                  *ecx |= 1 << 1; /* CmpLegacy bit */
              }
          }

For CPUID leaf 0x80000001 ECX bit 1, Intel defines it as "Bits 04-01: Reserved," whereas AMD defines it as "CmpLegacy, Core multi-processing legacy mode." For Intel CPUs and those following Intel's behavior, this bit should not be set to 1. Therefore,
I believe the "!" here is correct.


Sorry, I misread the original code.

I think maybe we can just use is_AMD_CPU(). But I'm not sure if any magic use case with customized VENDOR ID relies on it. So you code looks good to me.



reply via email to

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