On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:18:06PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 12.02.2013, at 23:16, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > > On 12.02.2013, at 11:23, Andreas Färber wrote: > > > >> Am 12.02.2013 03:16, schrieb David Gibson: > >>> The PowerPC 620 was the very first 64-bit PowerPC implementation, but > >>> hardly anyone ever actually used the chips. qemu notionally supports the > >>> 620, but since we don't actually have code to implement the segment table, > >>> the support is broken (quite likely in other ways too). > >>> > >>> This partch, therefore, removes all remaining pieces of 620 support, to > >>> stop it cluttering up the platforms we actually care about. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > >>> --- > >>> v2: Don't remove the POWERPC_DEF()s from the table, just move them under > >>> #ifdef(TODO) to document the CPU's existence and aliases. > >> [...] > >>> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c > >>> index 6cebaa1..1d2e842 100644 > >>> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c > >>> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c > >> [...] > >>> @@ -9244,11 +9000,11 @@ static const ppc_def_t ppc_defs[] = { > >>> POWERPC_DEF("7457A_v1.2", CPU_POWERPC_74x7A_v12, 7455), > >>> /* 64 bits PowerPC > >>> */ > >>> #if defined (TARGET_PPC64) > >>> +#if defined (TODO) > >> > >> checkpatch.pl will surely complain about the space, and elsewhere the > >> #ifs are repeated per model/family. I.e., I would've expected one new > >> pair of #if defined(TODO) and #endif around the two 620 definitions. Or > >> does the already-TODO 630 model depend on the 620 code despite type 630? > >> > >>> /* PowerPC 620 > >>> */ > >>> POWERPC_DEF("620", CPU_POWERPC_620, 620), > >>> /* Code name for PowerPC 620 > >>> */ > >>> POWERPC_DEF("Trident", CPU_POWERPC_620, 620), > >>> -#if defined (TODO) > >>> /* PowerPC 630 (POWER3) > >>> */ > >>> POWERPC_DEF("630", CPU_POWERPC_630, 630), > >>> POWERPC_DEF("POWER3", CPU_POWERPC_630, 630), > >> [snip] > >> > >> I've CC'ed you on the patchset that Alex and me had been preparing. > >> Let's leave it to Alex how to proceed with the conflicting patches. > > > > I would like to get the QOM'ification through first, then declare 620 as > > unsupported. > > > > David, I think the best way to proceed here would be to not touch anything > > in translate_init.c in your MMU cleanup patch set :). Or wouldn't that work? > > Eh - you aren't touching anything there. It's all about this patch > :). Oops.
> Then yes, QOM first. Actually some future patches in my mmu cleanup series may touch translate_init.c - in particular I'm thinking about making separate spr callbacks for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of SDR1. But I'm happy to wait until after the qom stuff and rework things as necessary for it. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature