On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:54:13AM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> Quoting David Gibson (2016-10-30 06:12:01)
> > During boot, PAPR guests negotiate CPU model support with the
> > ibm,client-architecture-support mechanism. The logic to implement this in
> > qemu is very convoluted. This cleans it up
Quoting David Gibson (2016-10-30 06:12:01)
> During boot, PAPR guests negotiate CPU model support with the
> ibm,client-architecture-support mechanism. The logic to implement this in
> qemu is very convoluted. This cleans it up to be cleaner, using the new
> ppc_check_compat() call.
>
> The new
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 04:00:14PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 30/10/16 22:12, David Gibson wrote:
> > During boot, PAPR guests negotiate CPU model support with the
> > ibm,client-architecture-support mechanism. The logic to implement this in
> > qemu is very convoluted. This cleans i
On 30/10/16 22:12, David Gibson wrote:
> During boot, PAPR guests negotiate CPU model support with the
> ibm,client-architecture-support mechanism. The logic to implement this in
> qemu is very convoluted. This cleans it up to be cleaner, using the new
> ppc_check_compat() call.
>
> The new logi
During boot, PAPR guests negotiate CPU model support with the
ibm,client-architecture-support mechanism. The logic to implement this in
qemu is very convoluted. This cleans it up to be cleaner, using the new
ppc_check_compat() call.
The new logic for choosing a compatibility mode is:
1. If t
