On Sun, 20 May 2012 14:34:48 -0400, Christoffer Dall <c.d...@virtualopensystems.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:57:20 -0400, Christoffer Dall > > <c.d...@virtualopensystems.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty.russ...@linaro.org> > >> wrote: > >> > As our emulation gets more sophisticated, we need to know what CPU model > >> > we're dealing with. Particularly for some of the nastier workarounds. > >> > > >> > Let's start with Cortex A-15. We can then test the MIDR elsewhere in the > >> > code, knowing that it's one of a finite set of allowed values. > > > > (Revisiting this now) > > > > The intent is good, this patch is not the right way to do it though. I > > think want an explicit ioctl to tell the kernel what CPU; since the > > kernel initialized the regs, it needs to know. > > > not sure of your point exactly, but if I understand correctly, what > you're saying is that since the kernel initializes all the regs (at > least it's going to) we want an ioctl to say "this is the cpu for > which you will initialize the regs"? > > that also makes for a more friendly user space interface than "you > need to set this register to this cryptic value to emulate this > cpu"...
Yes, exactly. Esp. since it also effects some of the cp15 emulation hacks. Cheers, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
