Doesn’t ‘max’ support being there mean we are supposed to support various
types of CPUs on the SBSA board?
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 18:00 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 09:46, Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitay...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > In target/arm/cpu64.c, CPU init function for A64FX is there, add this
> > CPU to the sbsa-ref board.
>
> (cc'ing the sbsa-ref maintainers)
>
> This isn't an objection, but I would like to know what the
> sbsa-ref maintainers' view is on what CPUs the board type
> is supposed to handle. Is this like the virt board, where we
> add basically any CPU type that might possibly work? Or is
> it more like a piece of 'real' hardware, where there are only
> one or two CPU types that that hardware might have shipped with,
> and the firmware/software stack might not be built to cope with
> anything more ?
>
> If we can answer the general question, then specific
> patches like this one will be easy to review.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitay...@fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > index 4bb444684f..a7d27b2e55 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ static const char * const valid_cpus[] = {
> > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a57"),
> > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a72"),
> > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a76"),
> > + ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("a64fx"),
> > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("neoverse-n1"),
> > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("max"),
> > };
> > --
> > 2.25.1
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
