Re: [PATCH 43/86] hppa: drop RAM size fixup

[Helge Deller]

On 02.01.20 13:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 1/2/20 12:31 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
>> On 31.12.19 16:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 12/31/19 2:03 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>>> If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
>>>> continue running with max RAM size supported.
>>>> Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
>>>> possible for board to fix things up for user.
>>>>
>>>> Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
>>>> instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>    hw/hppa/machine.c | 3 ++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/hw/hppa/machine.c b/hw/hppa/machine.c
>>>> index 5d0de26..25f5afc 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/hppa/machine.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/hppa/machine.c
>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@ static void machine_hppa_init(MachineState *machine)
>>>>          /* Limit main memory. */
>>>>        if (ram_size > FIRMWARE_START) {
>>>> -        machine->ram_size = ram_size = FIRMWARE_START;
>>>> +        error_report("RAM size more than %d is not supported", 
>>>> FIRMWARE_START);
>>>> +        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>>
>>> $ qemu-system-hppa -m 3841m
>>> qemu-system-hppa: invalid accelerator kvm
>>> qemu-system-hppa: falling back to tcg
>>> qemu-system-hppa: RAM size more than -268435456 is not supported
>>>
>>> Instead of using qemu_strtosz_MiB on FIRMWARE_START or unsigned format, we 
>>> can simply use "RAM size more than 3840m is not supported". Is that OK with 
>>> you?
>>
>> I don't really like that change.
>>
>> We currently only emulate a 32-bit system, and for those 4GB is the maximum.
>> So, if I start my machine with "qemu-system-hppa -m 4G", the current code
>> then automatically uses the maximum possible of 3841MB (which is limited by
>> firmware start address).
>> I don't expect users to know the excact 3841MB number.
>> Even on a phyiscal machine you can only add DIMMs of sizes 2GB, 3GB or 4GB,
>> but not "3841MB".
>
> Thanks for the explanation. This deserves a comment in the source
> file IMHO (and displaying a warning to the user that the behavior is
> changed).

If you put 4GB physically in the box, you wouldn't get a warning either...
It will simply use just 3841MB.

> I understand the CPU can't access this DRAM area because the ROM is
> mapped there. What about other devices, can they do DMA access to
> it?

Yes, I think so.

> Igor: If this complicates your series too much, I think we can
> directly allocate up-to 4GiB and not worry about the 256MiB lost.

Sounds like the best solution.

Helge