> If you want this CPU to work with the virt board, then yes. > You should put it above 'host' and 'max' (because those are > not-real-cpu special cases, so it makes more sense for them to be last > in the list). > > More generally: how are you testing this patchset? To test it > you should have at least one board that lets you use the new > CPU type so you can boot some guest with it. So if that's not > "virt" then what is it?
We are testing it on the virt board. Therefore, we will fix it as you suggested. Best regards. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Maydell <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 6:43 PM > To: Ishii, Shuuichirou/石井 周一郎 <[email protected]> > Cc: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>; Laurent Vivier <[email protected]>; > Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>; qemu-arm <[email protected]>; > QEMU Developers <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] docs/system: Add a64fx(Fujitsu A64FX processor) to > supported guest CPU type > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 08:31, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, Peter. > > > > > This adds a64fx to the list of CPUs we support in the 'virt' board, but > > > it hasn't > > > changed the valid_cpus[] array in hw/arm/virt.c, so trying to actually > > > use -cpu > > > a64fx with -machine virt will fail. > > > > I'm sorry, but just to be sure, let me check. > > > > Is it correct to understand that the above comment means that we need to add > > the following fixes included in "[PATCH 2/4] target-arm: cpu64: Add support > > for > Fujitsu A64FX" patch > > within this patch to make it a meaningful fix within one patch? > > > > > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c > > > index 93ab9d2..2e91991 100644 > > > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c > > > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c > > > @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ static const char *valid_cpus[] = { > > > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a72"), > > > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("host"), > > > ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("max"), > > > + ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("a64fx"), > > > }; > > If you want this CPU to work with the virt board, then yes. > You should put it above 'host' and 'max' (because those are > not-real-cpu special cases, so it makes more sense for them to be last > in the list). > > More generally: how are you testing this patchset? To test it > you should have at least one board that lets you use the new > CPU type so you can boot some guest with it. So if that's not > "virt" then what is it? > > -- PMM
