On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > On Sunday 29 November 2009 03:57:37 Filip Navara wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: >> > On Friday 27 November 2009 05:35:26 Filip Navara wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Sanders <vi...@kyllikki.org> >> > >> > wrote: >> >> > I appear to be unable to take a hint, your silence on this patch in >> >> > the past probably ought to have been a clue. however this will be the >> >> > last time I bother to try and get anything merged so you wont have to >> >> > be disturbed again. >> >> > >> >> > The attached patch adds V4t support to the ARM emulation, its pretty >> >> > much the same as the last time it was posted. It is correct in >> >> > everything it does to the best of my knowledge however you will as >> >> > usual no doubt find a corner case it does not cover and reject it. >> >> >> >> I have already sent more complete patch for ARM7TDMI emulation: >> >> >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg17205.html >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/36841/ >> > >> > That's a link to an archive that gives you html but not a raw patch. >> > (Huh, it says you sent it to the list but I'm not finding it in my mail >> > folder. Rummage, rummage, rummage... Ah, your original patch was dated >> > December 31 1969.) >> >> Yep, a bug in TortoiseGIT that was later fixed. >> >> > Ok, dug it up, applied it, booted an -M versatilepb kernel built with an >> > armv4tl compiler that I'm assured works for real armv4tl hardware, and I >> > get no boot messages if I say "-cpu arm7tdmi", but it boots fine if I >> > don't say that. >> > >> > Let's try my armv4l setup (which I've booted on real armv4tl hardware, >> > albeit with a different kernel .config but qemu hasn't got a board >> > emulation for the Tin Can Tools Hammer, last I checked...) That's an >> > OABI which doesn't depend on the Thumb extensions... >> > >> > Nope, that's armv4 OABI, and I've tested the output of that compiler on >> > real hardware, albeit with a different kernel .config. >> > >> > Your patch does not work for me. Is there a kernel .config change I need >> > to do for this? Looking in the kernel kconfig stuff, the only way to >> > select arm7tdmi is to disable MMU support. Is this a nommu processor? >> > (I know there are armv4t processors _with_ mmu...) >> >> It is nommu processor, so I would be surprised to see any of the >> kernels running. Unfortunately I don't have a ready-to-use kernel >> .config file for it, since I never even tried it with Linux. > > Did you add any armv4t processors with mmu? I believe the actual hardware I > tested was an ARM920T. Vincent's patch claims to add arm920T, I tested yours > because you claimed it was "more complete".
No, I didn't. My patch is more complete in the underlying ARM V4 bits, not in the formal definitions of the processor models. Adding ARM920T is matter of adding these two lines to target-arm/cpu.h (as in Vincent's patch): #define ARM_CPUID_ARM920T 0x41129200 { ARM_CPUID_ARM920T, "arm920t"}, and then adding the processor definition into helper.c: case ARM_CPUID_ARM920T: set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_ABORT_BU); set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_CP15); env->cp15.c0_cachetype = 0x0d172172; env->cp15.c1_sys = 0x00000078; break; > > I guess I should go test vincent's. > >> > What kernel .config, -M, and -cpu and did you use to test an armv4t >> > system image with your patch? >> >> -M at91pes (which is included in other patches from around the same >> time, but was never merged) > > "Included in other patches"... How _many_ other patches? And how far is > "around"? http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/navara.git The repository is desperately in need of rebasing, but I still didn't find a time to do so. > If you'd like to resubmit them as a batch, I can try coming up with a kernel > .config. (And a uClibc .config since I haven't actually tried a nommu system > yet.) I'll resubmit them soon and maybe merge some of the AT91SAM9 work, including the ARM920T cpu. Best regards, Filip Navara