Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390x/cpumodel: add 3931 and 3932

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jun 30 2021, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 30.06.21 15:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.06.21 22:19, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> This defines 5 new facilities and the new 3931 and 3932 machines.
>>> As before the name is not yet known and we do use gen16a and gen16b.
>>> The new features are part of the full model.
>>>
>>> The default model is still empty (same as z15) and will be added
>>> in a separate patch at a later point in time.
>>>
>>> Also add the dependencies of new facilities and as a fix for z15 add
>>> a dependency from S390_FEAT_VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH to
>>> S390_VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc |  5 +++++
>>>   target/s390x/cpu_models.c           |  6 ++++++
>>>   target/s390x/gen-features.c         | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>   3 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc
>>> index 7db3449e0434..c71caee74411 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc
>>> @@ -109,6 +109,11 @@ DEF_FEAT(VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH, "vxpdeh", STFL, 152, "Vector-Packed-Decimal-
>>>   DEF_FEAT(MSA_EXT_9, "msa9-base", STFL, 155, "Message-security-assist-extension-9 facility (excluding subfunctions)")
>>>   DEF_FEAT(ETOKEN, "etoken", STFL, 156, "Etoken facility")
>>>   DEF_FEAT(UNPACK, "unpack", STFL, 161, "Unpack facility")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(NNPA, "nnpa", STFL, 165, "NNPA facility")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH2, "vxpdeh2", STFL, 192, "Vector-Packed-Decimal-Enhancement facility 2")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(BEAR, "bear", STFL, 193, "BEAR-enhancement facility")
>> 
>> Usually we use "eh" for enhancement. Which would result in "beareh" or alternatively "beh". But maybe the "enhancement" part is not actually an enhancement, but instead this facility is more like the etoken or unpack facility ...
>
> There was no bear facility (I think it was part of PER3).
> beareh or beh would be fine with me.
>
>> 
>>> +DEF_FEAT(RDP, "rdp", STFL, 194, "Reset-DAT-protection facility")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(ACTIVITY, "activity", STFL, 196, "Processor-Activity-Instrumentation facility")
>> 
>> Would "pai" be a more appropriate feature name?
>
> pai would be ok for me as well.
>
> Conny, do you want to replace "activity" with "pai" and "bear" with "beareh" in your tree?

I can certainly edit this to a naming everyone agrees with (no strong
opinions from my side).

[Although I rather like large animals in cpu facilities 8)]