[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] target-ppc: Remove vestigial PowerPC 620 support
From: |
Alexander Graf |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] target-ppc: Remove vestigial PowerPC 620 support (v2) |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:18:06 +0100 |
On 12.02.2013, at 23:16, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 12.02.2013, at 11:23, Andreas Färber wrote:
>
>> Am 12.02.2013 03:16, schrieb David Gibson:
>>> The PowerPC 620 was the very first 64-bit PowerPC implementation, but
>>> hardly anyone ever actually used the chips. qemu notionally supports the
>>> 620, but since we don't actually have code to implement the segment table,
>>> the support is broken (quite likely in other ways too).
>>>
>>> This partch, therefore, removes all remaining pieces of 620 support, to
>>> stop it cluttering up the platforms we actually care about.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>> v2: Don't remove the POWERPC_DEF()s from the table, just move them under
>>> #ifdef(TODO) to document the CPU's existence and aliases.
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>> index 6cebaa1..1d2e842 100644
>>> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>> [...]
>>> @@ -9244,11 +9000,11 @@ static const ppc_def_t ppc_defs[] = {
>>> POWERPC_DEF("7457A_v1.2", CPU_POWERPC_74x7A_v12, 7455),
>>> /* 64 bits PowerPC
>>> */
>>> #if defined (TARGET_PPC64)
>>> +#if defined (TODO)
>>
>> checkpatch.pl will surely complain about the space, and elsewhere the
>> #ifs are repeated per model/family. I.e., I would've expected one new
>> pair of #if defined(TODO) and #endif around the two 620 definitions. Or
>> does the already-TODO 630 model depend on the 620 code despite type 630?
>>
>>> /* PowerPC 620
>>> */
>>> POWERPC_DEF("620", CPU_POWERPC_620, 620),
>>> /* Code name for PowerPC 620
>>> */
>>> POWERPC_DEF("Trident", CPU_POWERPC_620, 620),
>>> -#if defined (TODO)
>>> /* PowerPC 630 (POWER3)
>>> */
>>> POWERPC_DEF("630", CPU_POWERPC_630, 630),
>>> POWERPC_DEF("POWER3", CPU_POWERPC_630, 630),
>> [snip]
>>
>> I've CC'ed you on the patchset that Alex and me had been preparing.
>> Let's leave it to Alex how to proceed with the conflicting patches.
>
> I would like to get the QOM'ification through first, then declare 620 as
> unsupported.
>
> David, I think the best way to proceed here would be to not touch anything in
> translate_init.c in your MMU cleanup patch set :). Or wouldn't that work?
Eh - you aren't touching anything there. It's all about this patch :). Oops.
Then yes, QOM first.
Alex