From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3rPlRy68QhzDr54 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 20:44:30 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <1465382664.13854.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries: Add POWER8NVL support to ibm,client-architecture-support call From: Michael Ellerman To: Balbir Singh , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:44:24 +1000 In-Reply-To: <70305fb4-d345-bd89-e395-04c39b266fe4@gmail.com> References: <1464673877-30659-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <1464689047.23025.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> <574D6549.3050903@redhat.com> <1464690745.23025.2.camel@ellerman.id.au> <70305fb4-d345-bd89-e395-04c39b266fe4@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 11:14 +1000, Balbir Singh wrote: > On 31/05/16 20:32, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 12:19 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > On 31.05.2016 12:04, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 07:51 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > If we do not provide the PVR for POWER8NVL, a guest on this > > > > > system currently ends up in PowerISA 2.06 compatibility mode on > > > > > KVM, since QEMU does not provide a generic PowerISA 2.07 mode yet. > > > > > So some new instructions from POWER8 (like "mtvsrd") get disabled > > > > > for the guest, resulting in crashes when using code compiled > > > > > explicitly for POWER8 (e.g. with the "-mcpu=power8" option of GCC). > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth > > > > > > > > So this should say: > > > > > > > > Fixes: ddee09c099c3 ("powerpc: Add PVR for POWER8NVL processor") > > > > > > > > And therefore: > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.0+ > > > > > > > > Am I right? > > > > > > Right. (At least for virtualized systems ... for bare-metal systems, > > > that original patch was enough). So shall I resubmit my patch with these > > > two lines, or could you add them when you pick this patch up? > > > > Thanks, I'll add them here. > > Don't we need to update IBM_ARCH_VEC_NRCORES_OFFSET as well? Yep, patch sent this morning. cheers