On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:18:06 +0200 Laurent Vivier wrote: > On 28/06/2017 13:59, Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:23:06 +0200 > > Cédric Le Goater wrote: > > > >> On 06/28/2017 11:18 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote: > >>> On 28/06/2017 11:11, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > >>>> On 06/28/2017 10:18 AM, David Gibson wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:09:24AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>>>> On 28.06.2017 03:42, joserz@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 23/06/2017 11:21, David Gibson wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 01:31:24PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 22.06.2017 13:26, Laurent Vivier wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_DD1 is 0x004E0100, so this is the POWER9 v1.0. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> When we run qemu on a POWER9 DD1 host, we must use either > >>>>>>>>>>> "-cpu host" or "-cpu POWER9", but in the latter case it fails with > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Unable to find sPAPR CPU Core definition > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> because POWER9 DD1 doesn't appear in the list of known CPUs. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> This patch fixes this by defining POWER9_v1.0 with POWER9 DD1 > >>>>>>>>>>> PVR instead of CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_BASE. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier > >>>>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>>>> target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 2 +- > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c > >>>>>>>>>>> index 4d3e635..a22363c 100644 > >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c > >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ > >>>>>>>>>>> POWERPC_DEF("970_v2.2", CPU_POWERPC_970_v22, 970, > >>>>>>>>>>> "PowerPC 970 v2.2") > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - POWERPC_DEF("POWER9_v1.0", CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_BASE, POWER9, > >>>>>>>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF("POWER9_v1.0", CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_DD1, POWER9, > >>>>>>>>>>> "POWER9 v1.0") > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v1.0", CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v10, 970, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I think this also makes sense for running in TCG mode to get a valid > >>>>>>>>>> real PVR there. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not so convinced. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> IIUC, this will make TCG default (for now) to a DD1 POWER9. That's a) > >>>>>>>>> probably not what anyone wants - who'd select a buggy prototype and b) > >>>>>>>>> not accurate - TCG does not implement DD1's bugs. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> According to the POWER8 user manual (I didn't fine the POWER9 one): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "3.6.3.1 Processor Version Register (PVR) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The processor revision level (PVR[16:31]) starts at x‘0100’, indicating > >>>>>>>> revision ‘1.0’. As revisions are made, bits [29:31] will indicate minor > >>>>>>>> revisions. Similarly, bits [20:23] indicate major changes." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> POWER9 DD1 PVR is 0x004E0100, so this is really version 1.0 of the POWER9. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Perhaps we can define POWER9_v1.0 as CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_DD1, and > >>>>>>>> introduce a POWER9_v0.0 set to CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_BASE and define it as > >>>>>>>> the default one? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I like the suggestion to set a v0.0 to CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_BASE. But, I > >>>>>>> think we could have only that option, removing the > >>>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_DD1 entry. > >>>>>> I really dislike the idea of having a CPU called "v0.0" ... we do not > >>>>>> have this for any other CPU generation, and it sounds like it could be > >>>>>> very confusing for the users (you'd need to document somewhere what the > >>>>>> v0.0 exactly means). If we really want to go this way, I think we should > >>>>>> name it "POWER9-generic" or "PowerISA-3.0" or something similar instead. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Or does somebody already know the exact PVR for DD2? If so, we could > >>>>>> simply add a POWER9_v2.0 CPU already and let the POWER9 alias point to > >>>>>> that version instead. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I think that's a better idea. I don't know the DD2 PVR, but I'm > >>>>> pretty sure we should be able to find out from someone at IBM. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've CCed Sam & Suraj - can you ask Mikey or someone what the PVR > >>>>> value for DD2.0 will be? > >>>> > >>>> I would expect something like : > >>>> > >>>> 0x200D104980000000UL; /* P9 Nimbus DD2.0 */ > >>> > >>> > >>> I would expect something like 0x004Exxxx. > >> > >> ah yes, I am mistaking the PVR and the CFAM ID. > >> > >> C. > >> > > > > According to https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/776052/ > > > > POWER9 DD2's PVR is expected to be 0x004e1200 > > > > So, perhaps I can send a v2 of the patch with POWER9_v1.0 set to DD1 > PVR, and POWER9_v2.0 set to DD2 PVR? > FWIW Thomas suggested to do just that and David agreed it was "a better idea". > Thanks, > Laurent > >