[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH] powerpc: add PVR mask support

From: Alexander Graf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH] powerpc: add PVR mask support
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:39:36 +0200

On 15.08.2013, at 08:30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 08:03 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> How does the user select that he wants a v2.3 p7 cpu with this
>> patch?
>>> Why would he want that? The behaviour would not change because of
>> the
>>> version - all definitions use the same POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER7) and
>> PVR is
>>> not virtualized anyway.
>> Quite frankly I don't know what to say here. Are you trying to play
>> dumb or are you just one of those totally sloppy people who don't care
>> about anything outside of their own scope of work?
> Can you stop the bloody personal attacks on Alexey ? It's becoming
> tiresome.

No, Alexey's ignorance is pretty tiresome.

> He makes a very valid point. The ability to specify a specific revision
> of the processor is pointless for pretty much any use case we have in
> mind at the moment, and is even more pointless as long as we emulate
> them all exactly the same way.

The assessment that PVR does not get virtualized is simply not true. I agree 
that we need a way to match more generic CPU classes, as I've written in my 
previous reply.

> Besides, we can probably still organize the table from "more precise" to
> "less precise" entries and match that way if you *really* want to have
> specific entries for obscure revision of the chip.

So you really haven't read it. All we need is an intermediate class level that 
can match multiple CPUs and we should be good.


reply via email to

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