On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 12:26 +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 11/05/2013 06:42 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 10:41 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> What we really have are 3 semantically separate entities: > >> > >> * QEMU internal cpu id > >> * KVM internal cpu id > >> * DT exposed cpu id > >> > >> As you have noted, it's a good idea to keep the QEMU internal cpu id > >> linear, thus completely separate from the others. The DT exposed cpu id > >> should be 100% local to hw/ppc/spapr*.c. I don't think any code outside > >> of the DT generation and anything that accesses the "Virtual Processor > >> Number" in sPAPR needs to care about the DT cpu id. All that code is > >> 100% KVM agnostic. > > > > This patch isn't just for sPAPR... On e500 the DT cpu id is supposed to > > match the MPIC cpu id. > > > At least is my patch correct for e500?
I think so. > I do not really know what is the difference between e500 and spapr in this > part. e500 does not have sPAPR, and if the DT ID is "100% local to hw/ppc/spapr*.c" then the MPIC code will have a problem. Currently we don't support smt on e500 in QEMU, but e6500 (an e500-derivative) does have smt, so it could happen in the future. -Scott