Am 08.11.2013 15:57, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy:
> On 11/09/2013 12:20 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>
>> When I am finally through with review of Igor's patches then he can
>> implement that for x86 and we/you can copy or adapt it for ppc. No need
>> to do big experiments for a concretely needed pp
On 11/09/2013 12:20 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> When I am finally through with review of Igor's patches then he can
> implement that for x86 and we/you can copy or adapt it for ppc. No need
> to do big experiments for a concretely needed ppc feature.
Does it mean I better stop wasting your time a
Am 08.11.2013 09:22, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy:
> On 11/08/2013 12:36 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:11:51 +1100
>> Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2013 12:53 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:> Am 05.11.2013 10:52, schrieb
>>> Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, A
On 11/08/2013 12:36 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:11:51 +1100
> Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2013 12:53 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:> Am 05.11.2013 10:52, schrieb
>> Paolo Bonzini:
Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>
> On 05.11.2013, at 10
Am 07.11.2013 10:11, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy:
> On 11/06/2013 12:53 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:> Am 05.11.2013 10:52, schrieb
> Paolo Bonzini:
>>> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kard
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:11:51 +1100
Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 12:53 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:> Am 05.11.2013 10:52, schrieb
> Paolo Bonzini:
> >> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>
> Il 30/09/2013
On 11/06/2013 12:53 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:> Am 05.11.2013 10:52, schrieb
Paolo Bonzini:
>> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>>> Why is the option under -machi
On 06.11.2013, at 06:48, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 01:25:32PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
>>> To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
>>> PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every P
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:53:14 +0100
Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 05.11.2013 10:52, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> > Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> >>
> >> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >>> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
> >> Why is the
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 01:25:32PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
> > To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
> > PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every PowerISA specification
> > version from 2.04.
[snip]
> >
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:06:04AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
> >> > Why is the option under -machine instead of -cpu?
> > Because it is still the same CPU and the guest will still read the real
> > PVR from the hardware (which it may not sup
Am 05.11.2013 10:52, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>>
>> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> Why is the option under -machine instead of -cpu?
Because it is still the same
Il 05/11/2013 11:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> > Still in my opinion it should be "-cpu", not "-machine". Even if it's
>> > just a "virtual" CPU model.
> The compat option itself does not make much sense (yes we could just add
> yet another CPU class and that's it) but with the
> ibm,cli
On 11/05/2013 08:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>>
>> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> Why is the option under -machine instead of -cpu?
Because it is still the same
Il 05/11/2013 11:27, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>
> On 05.11.2013, at 10:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>>> Why is the option u
On 05.11.2013, at 10:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>>
>> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> Why is the option under -machine instead of -cpu?
Because it is still th
Il 05/11/2013 10:16, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>
> On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
> Why is the option under -machine instead of -cpu?
>>> Because it is still the same CPU and the guest will still read the real
>>> PVR
On 05.11.2013, at 03:19, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 12:49 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 09/30/2013 03:22 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> On 30.09.2013 21:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> I realized it has been a wh
On 05.11.2013, at 10:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
Why is the option under -machine instead of -cpu?
>> Because it is still the same CPU and the guest will still read the real
>> PVR from the hardware (which it may not support but this is w
Il 30/09/2013 14:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> > Why is the option under -machine instead of -cpu?
> Because it is still the same CPU and the guest will still read the real
> PVR from the hardware (which it may not support but this is why we need
> compatibility mode).
How do you support
On 10/01/2013 12:49 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 03:22 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 30.09.2013 21:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
I realized it has been a while since I got your response and did not answer
:) Sorry for the d
On 09/30/2013 03:22 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 30.09.2013 21:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every PowerISA specification
version from
On 30.09.2013 21:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>> To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
>> PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every PowerISA specification
>> version from 2.04.
>>
>> This adds the "compat" optio
On 30.09.2013 21:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/09/2013 13:25, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>> On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every PowerISA specification
Il 30/09/2013 13:25, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>> > To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
>> > PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every PowerISA specification
>> > version from 2.04.
>> >
>> > This adds the "
On 27.09.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
> PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every PowerISA specification
> version from 2.04.
>
> This adds the "compat" option which takes values 205 or 206 and forces
> QEMU to
To be able to boot on newer hardware that the software support,
PowerISA defines a logical PVR, one per every PowerISA specification
version from 2.04.
This adds the "compat" option which takes values 205 or 206 and forces
QEMU to boot the guest with a logical PVR (CPU_POWERPC_LOGICAL_2_05 or
CPU_
27 matches
Mail list logo
