On 22/07/2019 10:32, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >> On 18/07/2019 08:16, David Gibson wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 03:12:17PM +0930, Joel Stanley wrote: >>>> Currently we fail to boot a qemu powernv machine with a Power9 >>>> processor: >>>> >>>> PLAT: Detected generic platform >>>> PLAT: Detected BMC platform generic >>>> CPU: All 1 processors called in... >>>> CHIPTOD: Unknown TOD type ! >>>> CHIPTOD: Failed ChipTOD detection ! >>>> Aborting! >>>> >>>> With v6.4 we can boot both a Power8 and Power9 powernv machine. >>>> >>>> Built from submodule with powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 8.3.0-2). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> >>> Applied to ppc-for-4.2, thanks. >>> >>> If you could add both POWER8 and POWER9 smoke tests to >>> boot-serial-test that would be even better. >> >> There is one for POWER8 and adding an extra for POWER9 results >> in a test conflict. So I came up with the patch below. Would that >> be OK ? > > Ugh. This name mangling is pretty ugly. It would be neater to extend > the table format to have cpu explicitly and base the test names on > that, rather than special casing powernv. > > But... > > It occurs to me the reason we're hitting this is that for the other > systems represented here, the exact cpu model is really just a > detail. It's not for us, because the whole system is substantially > different for the two cpus. > > Which says to me that tbe POWER8 and POWER9 systems should really be > different machine types, not lumped together in "powernv" which then > has a heap of conditionals on the cpu family. If we do that, the > problem here goes away.
Yes. I just sent a patch for it. Thanks, C.
