qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 01/28] target-ppc: Use sensible POWER8/POWER8E ve


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 01/28] target-ppc: Use sensible POWER8/POWER8E versions
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 20:26:07 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0

On 25.01.2016 20:14, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/25/2016 02:15 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <address@hidden>
>>
>> We never released anything older than POWER8 DD2.0 and POWER8E DD2.1,
>> so let's use these versions, without that some firmware or Linux code
>> might fail to use some HW features that were non functional in earlier
>> internal only spins of the chip.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>   target-ppc/cpu-models.c | 12 ++++++------
>>   target-ppc/cpu-models.h |  4 ++--
>>   2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> index 4d5ab4b..349783e 100644
>> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> @@ -1138,10 +1138,10 @@
>>                   "POWER7 v2.3")
>>       POWERPC_DEF("POWER7+_v2.1",  CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21,           
>> POWER7,
>>                   "POWER7+ v2.1")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("POWER8E_v1.0",  CPU_POWERPC_POWER8E_v10,           
>> POWER8,
>> -                "POWER8E v1.0")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("POWER8_v1.0",   CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_v10,            
>> POWER8,
>> -                "POWER8 v1.0")
> 
> Removing those breaks -cpu host on 1.0 machines, no?

I don't think so. The code in kvm_ppc_register_host_cpu_type()
explicitly registers a "host" CPU type with the PVR of the current host.

Apart from that, as mentioned in the patch description, v1.0 chips
apparently have never been released into the wild - and I guess the
unreleased v1.0 chips have all already scrapped nowadays ... so the
patch should be fine, I think.

 Thomas




reply via email to

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