From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K5Nu8-0003Yu-Br
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:38:04 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K5Nu6-0003Wj-SM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:38:04 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57346 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K5Nu6-0003Wd-Ox
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:38:02 -0400
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.173]:25297)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1K5Nu6-0004hu-8m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:38:02 -0400
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so1737629wfd.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580806080938y5490f0c9u300e44b12943ba9a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:38:00 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Buggy wfi support for ARM user
In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0806080907t311f83dbo7f181746920baecb@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <761ea48b0806080554x4b8ca2e9o6b279fae72c357e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<200806081512.36543.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<761ea48b0806080907t311f83dbo7f181746920baecb@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 6/8/08, Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I propose that for user mode this instruction be considered
>  >> as a NOP.  Any thoughts?
>  >
>  > Allowing usermode to issue WFI sounds like a bug.
>
>  Here is a proposal that makes WFI no-ops for user mode emulation.
>  Comments welcome, especially as I am not used to send patches :)

Generally, the config-host.mak part should be suppressed in patches.

I don't know about this WFI case or even much of ARM at all, but if
enabling WFI is controversial, maybe it could be implemented as a CPU
feature so that it is disabled by default.