On 05/03/2018 02:58 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:41:47PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> On 04/24/2018 02:03 PM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>>>> +hwaddr ppc_hash64_hpt_reg(PowerPCCPU *cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> + CPUPPCState *env = &cpu->env;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* We should not reach this routine on sPAPR machines */
>>>> + assert(!cpu->vhyp);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* PowerNV machine */
>>>> + if (msr_hv) {
>>>> + if (env->mmu_model & POWERPC_MMU_3_00) {
>>>> + return ppc64_v3_get_patbe0(cpu);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + return cpu->env.spr[SPR_SDR1];
>>>> + }
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + error_report("PowerNV guest support Unimplemented");
>>>> + exit(1);
>>>
>>> I just noticed that this breaks 970 CPUs ...
>>
>> How about ?
>
> Hmm.. I'm not actually seeing why it breaks 970.
it does not have MSR_SHV bit.
> I really want to ditch 970 support, but we have to go through the
> deprecation process first.
Is it causing a lot of maintenance issues ?
>>
>> if (env->mmu_model < POWERPC_MMU_2_07) {
>> return cpu->env.spr[SPR_SDR1];
>> }
>>
>> /* P8/P9 PowerNV machine */
>> if (msr_hv) {
>> if (env->mmu_model == POWERPC_MMU_3_00) {
>> return ppc64_v3_get_patbe0(cpu);
>> } else {
>> return cpu->env.spr[SPR_SDR1];
>> }
>> } else {
>> error_report("PowerNV guest support Unimplemented");
>> exit(1);
>> }
>>
>> and I have to fix all the :
>>
>> env->mmu_model & POWERPC_MMU_3_00
>>
>> by :
>>
>> env->mmu_model == POWERPC_MMU_3_00
>>
>> I tripped over with the recent changes
>
> Right.. eventually I actually want this to be something more like
> if (cpu->radix64_opts)
> but I'm not sure on the details yet.
OK.
C.
