On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 17 March 2014 05:13, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> Suppress the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer field, even if the CPU specific
>>> value claims that it exists. QEMU doesn't currently
On 17 March 2014 05:13, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> Suppress the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer field, even if the CPU specific
>> value claims that it exists. QEMU doesn't currently implement it,
>> and not advertising it prevents the guest from
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Suppress the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer field, even if the CPU specific
> value claims that it exists. QEMU doesn't currently implement it,
> and not advertising it prevents the guest from trying to use it
> and getting UNDEFs on unimplemented reg
Suppress the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer field, even if the CPU specific
value claims that it exists. QEMU doesn't currently implement it,
and not advertising it prevents the guest from trying to use it
and getting UNDEFs on unimplemented registers.
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell
---
This is arguably a
