From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753312AbcAGQfr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:35:47 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:40811 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752356AbcAGQfq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:35:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:37:22 +0000
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] arm64 qemu tests failing in linux-next since
 'arm64: kernel: enforce pmuserenr_el0 initialization and restore'
Message-ID: <20160107163722.GB4064@red-moon>
References: <567B41E3.5060800@roeck-us.net>
 <CAFEAcA_c9DicGF+is6ST3NJv+c5Bi4dHYo2t8Q2n9AS9G4q0+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160107155310.GA4064@red-moon>
 <CAFEAcA_vP93=PE6LNNHodCsdk0gL0kBQPX=xzLJU5RzkvNs2vw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_vP93=PE6LNNHodCsdk0gL0kBQPX=xzLJU5RzkvNs2vw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 03:58:15PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 January 2016 at 15:53, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:25:35PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> We had previously been relying on the kernel not attempting to
> >> touch the PMU if the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer bits read 0000
> >> ("Performance Monitors extension System registers not implemented").
> >
> > Ok, thanks for looking into this. I wonder why reading pmcr_el0 does
> > not suffer from the same problem though.
> 
> Just a pragmatic thing on QEMU's end, I expect -- the kernel already
> touched PMCR_EL0 and we wanted to be able to boot it, so we have an
> implementation of it.

If that's the case, that was the wrong approach IMHO. QEMU has to comply
with the Aarch64 architecture which means that either the CPU it models
has a Performance Monitors extension or it does not. If reading pmcr_el0
does not fault I could tell you this is a QEMU regression because currently
it _does_ model pmcr_el0 while (hopefully) ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer reports
it should not.

I will add code that guards both register accesses to fix both bugs at
once.

Thanks,
Lorenzo