Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 1/5] target-ppc: Extend rtas-blob

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1805 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:18:44AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> 
> On 28.08.14 20:20, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thursday 28 August 2014 04:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25.08.14 15:45, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> >>> Extend rtas-blob to accommodate error log. Error log
> >>> structure is saved in rtas space upon a machine check
> >>> exception.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aravinda Prasad <aravinda@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>
> >> I can't say I'm a big fan of this patch. Can we somehow separate that
> >> NMI page from the RTAS blob? Also I'd definitely prefer if we keep
> >> rtas_entry == rtas_addr - if nothing else for the sake of backwards
> >> compatibility.
> >>
> >> So how about we lay out the structure in memory like this:
> >>
> >>   [ spapr-rtas.bin ]
> >>   [ padding to 4k boundary or whatever sPAPR requires ]
> >>   [ 4k NMI region ]
> >>
> >> Then the only thing we'd have to really change internally is the size
> >> information of the rtas blob.
> > 
> > Either we can have it like this or completely eliminate spapr-rtas.bin
> > (and spapr-rtas.S) by simply allocating required space in QEMU and then
> > patching the 5 instructions at rtas-entry as earlier discussed with David.
> > 
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-ppc/2014-08/msg00251.html
> > 
> 
> I strongly disagree with David. Legally there is no difference between a
> .bin file that contains code and an array made of instructions. And the
> more target code we can keep outside of QEMU the better.

What do legalities have to do with it?

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]