From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:57:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] KVM: PPC: Book3E: AltiVec support Message-Id: <1370548674.21533.17@snotra> List-Id: References: <1370292868-2697-1-git-send-email-mihai.caraman@freescale.com> <1370381959.748.16@snotra> <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF44EB49@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> <1370450103.26139.0@snotra> <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF453564@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> In-Reply-To: <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF453564@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> (from B02008@freescale.com on Thu Jun 6 04:42:44 2013) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Alexander Graf On 06/06/2013 04:42:44 AM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: > > > > This looks like a bit much for 3.10 (certainly, subject lines > like > > > > "refactor" and "enhance" and "add support" aren't going to make > > > Linus > > > > happy given that we're past rc4) so I think we should apply > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/242896/ for 3.10. Then for > 3.11, > > > > revert it after applying this patchset. > > > > > > > > > > Why not 1/6 plus e6500 removal? > > > > 1/6 is not a bugfix. > > Not sure I get it. Isn't this a better fix for AltiVec build breakage: > > -#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 42 > -#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 43 > +#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 32 > +#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 33 > > This removes the need for additional kvm_handlers. Obvious this > doesn't make > AltiVec to work so we still need to disable e6500. OK, didn't realize you meant it as an alternative fix to what was in my patch. -Scott From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from db8outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db8lp0189.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 446602C009D for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 05:58:04 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:57:54 -0500 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] KVM: PPC: Book3E: AltiVec support To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 References: <1370292868-2697-1-git-send-email-mihai.caraman@freescale.com> <1370381959.748.16@snotra> <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF44EB49@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> <1370450103.26139.0@snotra> <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF453564@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> In-Reply-To: <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF453564@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> (from B02008@freescale.com on Thu Jun 6 04:42:44 2013) Message-ID: <1370548674.21533.17@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" , Alexander Graf List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/06/2013 04:42:44 AM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: > > > > This looks like a bit much for 3.10 (certainly, subject lines =20 > like > > > > "refactor" and "enhance" and "add support" aren't going to make > > > Linus > > > > happy given that we're past rc4) so I think we should apply > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/242896/ for 3.10. Then for =20 > 3.11, > > > > revert it after applying this patchset. > > > > > > > > > > Why not 1/6 plus e6500 removal? > > > > 1/6 is not a bugfix. >=20 > Not sure I get it. Isn't this a better fix for AltiVec build breakage: >=20 > -#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 42 > -#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 43 > +#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 32 > +#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 33 >=20 > This removes the need for additional kvm_handlers. Obvious this =20 > doesn't make > AltiVec to work so we still need to disable e6500. OK, didn't realize you meant it as an alternative fix to what was in my =20 patch. -Scott= From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] KVM: PPC: Book3E: AltiVec support Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:57:54 -0500 Message-ID: <1370548674.21533.17@snotra> References: <1370292868-2697-1-git-send-email-mihai.caraman@freescale.com> <1370381959.748.16@snotra> <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF44EB49@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> <1370450103.26139.0@snotra> <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF453564@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Alexander Graf To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF453564@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> (from B02008@freescale.com on Thu Jun 6 04:42:44 2013) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 06/06/2013 04:42:44 AM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: > > > > This looks like a bit much for 3.10 (certainly, subject lines > like > > > > "refactor" and "enhance" and "add support" aren't going to make > > > Linus > > > > happy given that we're past rc4) so I think we should apply > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/242896/ for 3.10. Then for > 3.11, > > > > revert it after applying this patchset. > > > > > > > > > > Why not 1/6 plus e6500 removal? > > > > 1/6 is not a bugfix. > > Not sure I get it. Isn't this a better fix for AltiVec build breakage: > > -#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 42 > -#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 43 > +#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 32 > +#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 33 > > This removes the need for additional kvm_handlers. Obvious this > doesn't make > AltiVec to work so we still need to disable e6500. OK, didn't realize you meant it as an alternative fix to what was in my patch. -Scott