On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:03:59PM -0800, Alistair Francis wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Alistair Francis > <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > >> On 20 December 2017 at 00:27, Alistair Francis > >> <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote: > >>> There are numorous QEMU machines that only have a single or a handful of > >>> valid CPU options. To simplyfy the management of specificying which CPU > >>> is/isn't valid let's create a property that can be set in the machine > >>> init. We can then check to see if the user supplied CPU is in that list > >>> or not. > >>> > >>> I have added the valid_cpu_types for some ARM machines only at the > >>> moment. > >>> > >>> Here is what specifying the CPUs looks like now: > >>> > >>> $ aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -M netduino2 -kernel ./u-boot.elf > >>> -nographic -cpu "cortex-m3" -S > >>> QEMU 2.10.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information > >>> (qemu) info cpus > >>> * CPU #0: thread_id=24175 > >>> (qemu) q > >>> > >>> $ aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -M netduino2 -kernel ./u-boot.elf > >>> -nographic -cpu "cortex-m4" -S > >>> QEMU 2.10.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information > >>> (qemu) q > >>> > >>> $ aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -M netduino2 -kernel ./u-boot.elf > >>> -nographic -cpu "cortex-m5" -S > >>> qemu-system-aarch64: unable to find CPU model 'cortex-m5' > >>> > >>> $ aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -M netduino2 -kernel ./u-boot.elf > >>> -nographic -cpu "cortex-a9" -S > >>> qemu-system-aarch64: Invalid CPU type: cortex-a9-arm-cpu > >>> The valid types are: cortex-m3-arm-cpu, cortex-m4-arm-cpu > >> > >> Thanks for this; we really should be more strict about > >> forbidding "won't work" combinations than we have > >> been in the past. > >> > >> In the last of these cases, I think that when we > >> list the invalid CPU type and the valid types > >> we should use the same names we want the user to > >> use on the command line, without the "-arm-cpu" > >> suffixes. > > > > Hmm... That is a good point, it is confusing that they don't line up.
Agreed. > > > > The problem is that we are just doing a simple > > object_class_dynamic_cast() in hw/core/machine.c which I think > > (untested) requires us to have the full name in the valid cpu array. [...] > > I think an earlier version of my previous series adding the support to > machine.c did string comparison, but it was decided to utilise objects > instead. One option is to make the array 2 wide and have the second > string be user friendly? Making the array 2-column will duplicate information that we can already find out using other methods, and it won't solve the problem if an entry has a parent class with multiple subclasses (the original reason I suggested object_class_dynamic_cast()). The main obstacle to fix this easily is that we do have a common ObjectClass *cpu_class_by_name(const char *cpu_model) function, but not a common method to get the model name from a CPUClass. Implementing this is possible, but probably better to do it after moving the existing arch-specific CPU model enumeration hooks to common code (currently we duplicate lots of CPU enumeration/lookup boilerplate code that we shouldn't have to). Listing only the human-friendly names in the array like in the original patch could be a reasonable temporary solution. It won't allow us to use a single entry for all subclasses of a given type by now (e.g. listing only TYPE_X86_CPU on PC), but at least we can address this issue without waiting for a refactor of the CPU model enumeration code. -- Eduardo