On 25 September 2014 19:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 September 2014 10:31, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> This is obviously wrong, we have to put a \0 to separate the two options.
>>
>> But thee question remains, should we mark that as arm,armv8-timer compatible?
>
> I think we should, but only if
On 16 September 2014 10:31, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> This is obviously wrong, we have to put a \0 to separate the two options.
>
> But thee question remains, should we mark that as arm,armv8-timer compatible?
I think we should, but only if the CPU we're presenting to
the guest is a v8 CPU (ie the
This is obviously wrong, we have to put a \0 to separate the two options.
But thee question remains, should we mark that as arm,armv8-timer compatible?
Thanks,
Claudio
On 15 September 2014 10:14, wrote:
> From: Claudio Fontana
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana
> ---
> hw/arm/virt.c | 2 +-
From: Claudio Fontana
Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana
---
hw/arm/virt.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Is the timer armv8-compatible? I think it is, at least the virtual
timer seems to work as expected.
When looking up the timer information in the guest btw,
where the gu
