On 11/09/2013 12:44 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 08.11.2013 03:37, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy:
>> So far POWER7+ was a part of POWER7 family. However it has a different
>> PVR base value so in order to support PVR masks, it needs a separate
>> family class.
>>
>
> Alexey,
>
>> Another reason to make a POWER7+ family is that its name in the device
>> tree (/proc/device-tree/cpus/cpu*) should be "Power7+" but not "Power7"
>> and this cannot be easily fixed without a new family class.
>>
>> This adds a new family class, PVR base and mask values and moves
>> Power7+ v2.1 CPU to a new family. The class init function is copied
>> from the POWER7 family.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>
>> ---
>> Changes:
>> v2:
>> * added VSX enable bit
>> ---
>> target-ppc/cpu-models.c | 2 +-
>> target-ppc/cpu-models.h | 2 ++
>> target-ppc/translate_init.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> index 04d88c5..7c9466f 100644
>> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>> @@ -1140,7 +1140,7 @@
>> "POWER7 v2.1")
>> POWERPC_DEF("POWER7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23, POWER7,
>> "POWER7 v2.3")
>> - POWERPC_DEF("POWER7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7,
>> + POWERPC_DEF("POWER7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21,
>> POWER7P,
>> "POWER7+ v2.1")
>> POWERPC_DEF("POWER8_v1.0", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_v10, POWER8,
>> "POWER8 v1.0")
>> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.h b/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
>> index 731ec4a..49ba4a4 100644
>> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
>> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
>> @@ -558,6 +558,8 @@ enum {
>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v20 = 0x003F0200,
>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v21 = 0x003F0201,
>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23 = 0x003F0203,
>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_BASE = 0x004A0000,
>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_MASK = 0xFFFF0000,
>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21 = 0x004A0201,
>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_BASE = 0x004B0000,
>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_MASK = 0xFFFF0000,
>> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>> index 35d1389..c030a20 100644
>> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>> @@ -7253,6 +7253,44 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER7)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>> pcc->l1_icache_size = 0x8000;
>> }
>>
>> +POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER7P)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>> +{
>> + DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_CLASS(oc);
>> + PowerPCCPUClass *pcc = POWERPC_CPU_CLASS(oc);
>> +
>> + dc->fw_name = "PowerPC,POWER7+";
>
> Apart from the commit message differing from the code...
In what part?
> We've had this discussion before: Jacques reported that on his POWER7+
> box only "POWER7" is shown, not "POWER7+", equivalent to my POWER5+ box
> showing only "PowerPC,POWER5". Compare my commit, which documents this:
>
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=793826cd460828975591f289de78672af4a47ef9
>
> So, adding a POWER7P family seems correct to me, just the fw_name seems
> wrong - or you'll need to investigate further why there are conflicting
> reports of how it is shown. Possibly based on revision or pHyp vs. SLOF?
Yes we have had this discussion. Paul said it should "POWER7+". The only
P7+ machine I have handy shows "+":
[aik@vpl4 ~]$ ls -d /proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC*
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@0
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@2c
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@10
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@30
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@14
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@34
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@18
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@38
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@1c
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@3c
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@20
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@4
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@24
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@8
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@28
/proc/device-tree/cpus/PowerPC,POWER7+@c
And this is a host, not a guest. I do not see any good reason to make dt
names different.
And this does not really matter if there is "+" or not for anybody as far
as we concerned, ppc64_cpu works either way.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
>> + dc->desc = "POWER7+";
>> + pcc->pvr = CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_BASE;
>> + pcc->pvr_mask = CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_MASK;
>> + pcc->init_proc = init_proc_POWER7;
>> + pcc->check_pow = check_pow_nocheck;
>> + pcc->insns_flags = PPC_INSNS_BASE | PPC_ISEL | PPC_STRING | PPC_MFTB |
>> + PPC_FLOAT | PPC_FLOAT_FSEL | PPC_FLOAT_FRES |
>> + PPC_FLOAT_FSQRT | PPC_FLOAT_FRSQRTE |
>> + PPC_FLOAT_STFIWX |
>> + PPC_CACHE | PPC_CACHE_ICBI | PPC_CACHE_DCBZ |
>> + PPC_MEM_SYNC | PPC_MEM_EIEIO |
>> + PPC_MEM_TLBIE | PPC_MEM_TLBSYNC |
>> + PPC_64B | PPC_ALTIVEC |
>> + PPC_SEGMENT_64B | PPC_SLBI |
>> + PPC_POPCNTB | PPC_POPCNTWD;
>> + pcc->insns_flags2 = PPC2_VSX | PPC2_DFP | PPC2_DBRX | PPC2_ISA205;
>> + pcc->msr_mask = 0x800000000204FF37ULL;
>> + pcc->mmu_model = POWERPC_MMU_2_06;
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOFTMMU)
>> + pcc->handle_mmu_fault = ppc_hash64_handle_mmu_fault;
>> +#endif
>> + pcc->excp_model = POWERPC_EXCP_POWER7;
>> + pcc->bus_model = PPC_FLAGS_INPUT_POWER7;
>> + pcc->bfd_mach = bfd_mach_ppc64;
>> + pcc->flags = POWERPC_FLAG_VRE | POWERPC_FLAG_SE |
>> + POWERPC_FLAG_BE | POWERPC_FLAG_PMM |
>> + POWERPC_FLAG_BUS_CLK | POWERPC_FLAG_CFAR |
>> + POWERPC_FLAG_VSX;
>> + pcc->l1_dcache_size = 0x8000;
>> + pcc->l1_icache_size = 0x8000;
>> +}
>> +
>> POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER8)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>> {
>> DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_CLASS(oc);
>>
>
>
--
Alexey
