Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v4 02/29] target-ppc: Merge 970FX and 970MP into a single 970 class

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

On 06/03/2014 05:40 PM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Tue,  3 Jun 2014 19:27:37 +1000
> Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>
>> The differences between classes were:
>> 1. SLB size, was 32 for 970 and 64 for others, should be 64 for all;
>> 2. check_pow() callback, HID0 format is the same so should be the same
>> 0x01C00000 which means "deep nap", "doze" and "nap" bits set;
>> 3. LPCR - 970 does not have it but 970MP had one (by mistake).
>>
>> This fixes wrong differences and makes one 970 class.
>>
>> This fixes wrong registration of LPCR which is not present on 970.
>>
>> This does not copy MSR_SHV (Hypervisor State, HV) bit from 970FX to
>> 970 class as we do not emulate hypervisor in QEMU anyway.
>>
>> This does not remove check_pow_970FX now as it is still used by POWER5+
>> class, this will be addressed later.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
>> ---
>>   target-ppc/cpu-models.c     |  14 +--
>>   target-ppc/translate_init.c | 222 ++++----------------------------------------
>>   2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 213 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> index 9a66c03..97a81d8 100644
>> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> @@ -1142,19 +1142,19 @@
>>                   "POWER8 v1.0")
>>       POWERPC_DEF("970",           CPU_POWERPC_970,                    970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v1.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v10,              970FX,
>> +    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v1.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v10,              970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970FX v1.0 (G5)")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v2.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v20,              970FX,
>> +    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v2.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v20,              970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970FX v2.0 (G5)")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v2.1",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v21,              970FX,
>> +    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v2.1",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v21,              970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970FX v2.1 (G5)")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v3.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v30,              970FX,
>> +    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v3.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v30,              970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970FX v3.0 (G5)")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v3.1",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v31,              970FX,
>> +    POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v3.1",    CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v31,              970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970FX v3.1 (G5)")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v10,              970MP,
>> +    POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.0",    CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v10,              970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970MP v1.0")
>> -    POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1",    CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11,              970MP,
>> +    POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1",    CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11,              970,
>>                   "PowerPC 970MP v1.1")
>>   #if defined(TODO)
>>       POWERPC_DEF("Cell",          CPU_POWERPC_CELL,                   970,
>> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>> index fa137af..2f40d0d 100644
>> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>> @@ -7268,8 +7268,9 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(e600)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>
>>   static int check_pow_970 (CPUPPCState *env)
>>   {
>> -    if (env->spr[SPR_HID0] & 0x00600000)
>> +    if (env->spr[SPR_HID0] & 0x01C00000) {
> What about killing magic numbers with something like:
>
> #define HID0_DEEPNAP    (1<<24)
> #define HID0_DOZE       (1<<23)
> #define HID0_NAP        (1<<22)

I like the idea. But IMHO this can easily come as a follow-up patch if 
that's the only nit on this patch set :).


Alex