From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36999) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VFP8V-0004t6-JO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:53:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VFP8O-0004oV-8q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:53:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:65233) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VFP8N-0004mU-UJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:53:08 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r10so1905799pdi.14 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5220A3BC.4070000@ozlabs.ru> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:53:00 +1000 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1376606111-3518-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1376606111-3518-3-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <52209D6D.4020307@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <52209D6D.4020307@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] spapr: Use DeviceClass::fw_name for device tree CPU node List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Cc: Prerna Saxena , qemu-ppc , Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 08/30/2013 11:26 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 30.08.2013 15:21, schrieb Alexander Graf: >> >> On 16.08.2013, at 00:35, Andreas Färber wrote: >> >>> Instead of relying on cpu_model, obtain the device tree node label >>> per CPU. Use DeviceClass::fw_name when available. This implicitly >>> resolves HOST@0 node labels for those CPUs through inheritance. >>> >>> Whenever DeviceClass::fw_name is not available, derive it from the CPU's >>> type name and fill it in for that class with a "PowerPC," prefix for >>> PAPR compliance. >> >> Could we just mandate the fw_name field to always be set for all classes instead? > > Sure, we can assert it. But we would then need to set fw_name for the > various 970 families at least, which I have been using with pseries in > the past. Cell and POWER6 are TODO so I'm not concerned about them. Not > sure about RS64 that Alexey mentioned - I wouldn't be able to test. > Would be bad to regress and abort with CPU models that were working okay > before. If we generated fw_name as it would have been done by the current helpers, how would anything regress? -- Alexey