From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBT1o-0006ly-1k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBT1h-0007iM-6k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:03 -0400 Message-ID: <52125250.7000603@suse.de> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:13:52 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7AAF2DA2-1FEF-4ECA-B220-366D94EC70C4@suse.de> <1376552735-2953-1-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> <520C8C11.6080905@ozlabs.ru> <98FAFA62-3B3A-40E9-8973-705C5F569CEE@suse.de> <520CB2EC.8060105@suse.de> <471DDE4C-6C6F-4F07-BCFB-8765AC88FEF4@suse.de> <520CBFFD.5040100@suse.de> <40E3D07A-36B2-4775-AE47-2CC1ABEC743B@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <40E3D07A-36B2-4775-AE47-2CC1ABEC743B@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v3] powerpc: add PVR mask support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy , Paul Mackerras , Anthony Liguori , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 15.08.2013 13:59, schrieb Alexander Graf: >=20 > On 15.08.2013, at 13:48, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: >=20 >> We do have the following: >> >> "object" >> +- "device" >> +- "cpu" >> +- "powerpc64-cpu" >> +- "POWER7-family-powerpc64-cpu" -> POWERPC_FAMILY() >=20 > Ah, there is the family :). >=20 >> +- "POWER7_v2.0-powerpc64-cpu" -> POWERPC_DEF_SVR() >> +- "host-powerpc64-cpu" (depending on host PVR) >> >> That's why I was saying: If we need POWER7+-specific family code, we >> need to have a POWER7P family and not reuse POWER7 as conveniently don= e >> today. All is there to implement properties or whatever at that level. >=20 > Ah, so your point is that POWER7+ is-a POWER7 today? That's most likely= wrong, yes. Who pulled in that code? Today POWER7+_v2.1-powerpc64-cpu is-a POWER7-family-powerpc64-cpu, yes. http://git.qemu.org/?p=3Dqemu.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3D03a15a5436ed7723f406f15c= c3798aa9991e75b5 http://git.qemu.org/?p=3Dqemu.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3Da7d6b9f084765a834110bb9a= 2a0329b1a96de792 >> And that's also why trying to do the parent tweaking in >> POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY_MEMBER() is bogus. The existing infrastructure just >> needs to be used the right way, sigh. >=20 > That's not what this patch is about. It's about making the family class= es instantiable. Could we just remove the abstract =3D true piece from th= e POWER7 class and create that one as our generic POWER7 CPU? That seems unnecessary to me since the host type is already instantiatable and we can set the host's PVR there, whether we derive from an abstract or non-abstract type. >> And to clean up the aliases business, we should simply move them into >> the POWER7_v2.0-powerpc64-cpu level class as an array, I think. That >> would greatly simplify -cpu ?, and the alias-to-type lookup would get >> faster at the same time since we wouldn't be looking at unavailable >> models anymore. >=20 > Not sure I follow you on this one :). You had complained about and uglily bandaided aliases for -cpu ?, some versions of this patch here touched on aliases and so did the sPAPR device tree patches I reworked by now to avoid exactly that. Point is, let's keep separate aspects separate, then we can fix one problem at a time and gradually move forward rather than constantly ending up with colliding patches. :) Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe= rg