[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] target-ppc: Remove never existed POWER5+ v
From: |
Andreas Färber |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] target-ppc: Remove never existed POWER5+ v0.0 |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:36:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 |
s/existed/existing/ or "that never existed"
Am 18.03.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy:
> IBM uses low 16bits to specify a chip version of a POWER CPU.
"specify the chip version of a"
> So there has never been an actual silicon with PVR = 0x003B0000.
> The first silicon would have PVR 0x003B0100 but it is very unlikely
> to find it in any machine shipped to any customer as it is was too raw.
"as it was"
>
> This removes CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v00 definition and changes
Maybe worth pointing out that the POWER5+_v0.0 QOM type was introduced
in recent commit d7586dc426472b5ad0f5c01b5c7c551eeb5a6003 (target-ppc:
Add versions to server CPU descriptions)?
> POWER5+ and POWERgs aliases (which are synonyms) to point to
> POWER5+_v2.1 which can still be found in real machines.
FTR, 171777a4b38a0f6331ae60c2546a5baf84c4b359 (target-ppc: Turn POWER5gs
CPU into alias for POWER5+) set the POWER5+ alias up as conflict
resolution before I enabled the #ifdef TODO'ed POWER5P code in
35ebcb2b7a469739e6452d27379181bfbfc0388d (target-ppc: Prepare POWER5P
CPU family).
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden>
> ---
>
>
> I asked Paul. He suggested that there has never been an actual
> POWER5 silicon with PVR which low 16 bits are zeroes,
> the first one would be 0x003B0100 but it would be so buggy so
> it would not be shipped to any real customer.
> And then he suggested to look at the real POWER5+ machine,
> we looked around and found one:
>
> cpu : POWER5+ (gs)
> clock : 1898.100000MHz
> revision : 2.0 (pvr 003b 0200)
>
> I believe 3b 0201 is also something real and it is defined already in QEMU
> so here is a patch.
Yes, I have a 2.1, so having POWER5+ point to it should be fine, it
being the latest and now only one we have.
Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>
Alex, can you tweak the commit message and apply this for 2.3 please, as
fixup for the too hastily applied fix?
> Yes, this does not touch the cpu family class registration issue, just
> a tiny cleanup :)
We can fix that for 2.4. :) Same for Alex' class cache that I just saw
again.
Thanks,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu,
Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)