From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73C1C433ED for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8883611B0 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229512AbhDHDoU (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:44:20 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:9444 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229469AbhDHDoT (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:44:19 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1383hNgj189190; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:43:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=M5YyGyvWrfpM6mouCFBNWvwNAPp/hMMkIWHkaOPIBZM=; b=OHGOMvidOBD78rppWGzRX61MvNg2/bKJFjp6p/Usav5hpF2YrdlguHzk9J5l/5WQ4eLT hHugqSEAe9O/F1T2vEjLrNgMxx3i/IIfDVo9+W6OGPHlNlmB5ZEgEzkZcdhSDMHIFaaz WlXBH0mqZ7LQ/jY74oKBRfpUy1cUdsQgjyNH0gGADJJCDueRqSEhgz0xthi2LdE50qpz Mhlf3WbhLYiOgFxSJsiGVIHCHwYjFUtowbL58JeY2iSzc0xR/Mfk0I322v5VuqgvOYfX h6fMwK09i0XQTINDbYl/OhY9I3MpvKk6El1fhQO5CdzOIqYUdgb79NB7kfz7Q4SZ336t fg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37rw6kw116-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:43:47 -0400 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1383hlpA189687; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:43:47 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37rw6kw10r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:43:47 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1383RcG4020886; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:43:44 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37rvbu97aw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 03:43:44 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1383hg791245746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:43:42 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F75AA405C; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:43:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F14A405B; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:43:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.199.37.175] (unknown [9.199.37.175]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:43:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] ppc: Enable 2nd DAWR support on p10 To: David Gibson , Greg Kurz Cc: paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mikey@neuling.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, clg@kaod.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, cohuck@redhat.com, Ravi Bangoria References: <20210406053833.282907-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> <20210406053833.282907-4-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> <20210407101041.1a884af7@bahia.lan> From: Ravi Bangoria Message-ID: <298d37fc-49b9-5297-b196-14b35b1ec4de@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 09:13:38 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: S57IxgAYrtKqsXWg_grbhiPy5PCZ7aYp X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: _7YxHdCh5qPIfVKoLFWzbULqTV8eAZN_ X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-08_01:2021-04-07,2021-04-08 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=966 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104080021 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org >>> +static void cap_dawr1_apply(SpaprMachineState *spapr, uint8_t val, >>> + Error **errp) >>> +{ >>> + ERRP_GUARD(); >>> + if (!val) { >>> + return; /* Disable by default */ >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (tcg_enabled()) { >>> + error_setg(errp, "DAWR1 not supported in TCG."); >>> + error_append_hint(errp, "Try appending -machine cap-dawr1=off\n"); >>> + } else if (kvm_enabled()) { >>> + if (!kvmppc_has_cap_dawr1()) { >>> + error_setg(errp, "DAWR1 not supported by KVM."); >>> + error_append_hint(errp, "Try appending -machine cap-dawr1=off\n"); >>> + } else if (kvmppc_set_cap_dawr1(val) < 0) { >>> + error_setg(errp, "DAWR1 not supported by KVM."); >> >> Well... technically KVM does support DAWR1 but something went wrong when >> trying to enable it. In case you need to repost, maybe change the error >> message in this path, e.g. like in cap_nested_kvm_hv_apply(). > > This won't be going in until 6.1 anyway, so please to update the > message. Sure. Will post v5 with updated message. > > I'd probably prefer to actually wait until the 6.1 tree opens to apply > this, rather than pre-queueing it in ppc-for-6.1, because there's a > fairly good chance the header update patch will conflict with someone > else's during the 6.1 merge flurry. No worries. Thanks Greg, David for the review. Ravi