Re: [RFC 21/21] arm/cpu-features: Document custom vcpu model

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, Oct 28 2024, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 05:05:44PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 25 2024, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 03:28:35PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
>> >> Hi Daniel,
>> >> 
>> >> On 10/25/24 15:13, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 12:17:40PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
>> >> >> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Add some documentation for the custom model.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >>  docs/system/arm/cpu-features.rst | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> >> >>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> >> @@ -167,6 +196,16 @@ disabling many SVE vector lengths would be quite 
>> >> >> verbose, the ``sve<N>`` CPU
>> >> >>  properties have special semantics (see "SVE CPU Property Parsing
>> >> >>  Semantics").
>> >> >>  
>> >> >> +The ``custom`` CPU model needs to be configured via individual ID 
>> >> >> register
>> >> >> +field properties, for example::
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +  $ qemu-system-aarch64 -M virt -cpu 
>> >> >> custom,SYSREG_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1_DP=0x0
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +This forces ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1 DP field to 0.
>> >> > What is the "baseline" featureset implied by 'custom' ?
>> >> there is no baseline at the moment. By default this is a host
>> >> passthrough model.
>> >
>> > Why do we need to create "custom" at all, as opposed to just letting
>> > users toggle features on "-cpu host" ? 
>> 
>> We could consolidate that to the current "host" model, once we figure
>> out how to handle the currently already existing properties. Models
>> based on the different architecture extensions would probably be more
>> useable in the long run; maybe "custom" has a place for testing.
>
> If you can set the features against "host", then any testing could
> be done with "host" surely, making 'custom' pointless ?

We might differentiate between "do some consistency checks" and "allow
a completely weird wolpertinger"; if we agree that we don't need it,
then we surely could drop it again.