On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 02:41:17PM -0700, Alistair Francis wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:05:13PM -0700, Alistair Francis wrote: > >> List all possible valid CPU options. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> > >> --- > >> > >> hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c | 10 ++++++++++ > >> hw/arm/xlnx-zynqmp.c | 16 +++++++++------- > >> include/hw/arm/xlnx-zynqmp.h | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c > >> index 519a16ed98..039649e522 100644 > >> --- a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c > >> +++ b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c > >> @@ -98,6 +98,8 @@ static void xlnx_zynqmp_init(XlnxZCU102 *s, MachineState > >> *machine) > >> object_property_add_child(OBJECT(machine), "soc", OBJECT(&s->soc), > >> &error_abort); > >> > >> + object_property_set_str(OBJECT(&s->soc), machine->cpu_type, > >> "cpu-type", > >> + &error_fatal); > > > > Do you have plans to support other CPU types to xlnx_zynqmp in > > the future? If not, I wouldn't bother adding the cpu-type > > property and the extra boilerplate code if it's always going to > > be set to cortex-a53. > > No, it'll always be A53. > > I did think of that, but I also wanted to use the new option! I also > think there is an advantage in sanely handling users '-cpu' option, > before now we just ignored it, so I think it still does give a > benefit. That'll be especially important on the Xilinx tree (sometimes > people use our machines with a different CPU to 'benchmark' or test > other CPUs with our CoSimulation setup). So I think it does make sense > to keep in.
I see. Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> -- Eduardo