From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53256) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f16kV-0000k2-TD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 04:48:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f16kU-0001LX-Th for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 04:48:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:47:20 +1100 From: David Gibson Message-ID: <20180328084720.GI3510@umbus.fritz.box> References: <20180327043741.7705-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20180327043741.7705-12-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <05dd7870-11ba-7be8-ce45-6c9aba653226@kaod.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jaTU8Y2VLE5tlY1O" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <05dd7870-11ba-7be8-ce45-6c9aba653226@kaod.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC for-2.13 11/12] target/ppc: Remove unnecessary POWERPC_MMU_V3 flag from mmu_model List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, groug@kaod.org, agraf@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com --jaTU8Y2VLE5tlY1O Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:49:25AM +0200, C=E9dric Le Goater wrote: > On 03/28/2018 09:43 AM, C=E9dric Le Goater wrote: > > On 03/27/2018 06:37 AM, David Gibson wrote: > >> The only place we test this flag is in conjunction with > >> ppc64_use_proc_tbl(). That checks for the LPCR_UPRT bit, which we alr= eady > >> ensure can't be set except on a machine with a v3 MMU (i.e. POWER9). > >=20 > > hmm, ok, but what will I use for the PowerNV hash MMU support then ?=20 >=20 > That will be POWERPC_MMU_3_00. You could check for that explicitly, or you could just check for presence of non-NULL hash64_opts. The idea is that will always be the case for cpus capable of using the hash MMU. I'm also considering adding a similar radix_opts with radix specific details. POWER9 would have both, since it can support either mode. > I didn't realize mmu_model was so=20 > crowded .. It's not so that it's short of space. It's more that the mix of enum like pieces and bitflag like pieces like bits makes it confusing to know whether it should be tested with simple equality or with &. And if testing with equality which bits should be masked for a sensible comparison. Additionally, I'd like to get options that are strictly related to the hash mmu out of the general structures. --=20 David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --jaTU8Y2VLE5tlY1O Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEdfRlhq5hpmzETofcbDjKyiDZs5IFAlq7VpYACgkQbDjKyiDZ s5LewA//bR8lBEUX/cvKqcDZ4tEbETv837sTjjgRVqDzhbvD7qzqMWSsaAOvymtb BLkvQuLLyxyZPGB93nkk5dNKjNFhWeNKgY2KXdzjIkWuQ+rIFblFIWXuorD13MAn T33PUUomU0Pg1OuYhhda2jaTZ+Hcan6zyR1bqqakVofHWeyqc2GNSoJf4dJzhLpe PfKxmOExK52gM8QT+ICDKuKkGESzTKmUtyCrLSS4B4oQZgddFIdnBmw3GpUi3aq1 sZC6F3+kkonODz4/hqlyN3O1pnqDQw+OizCcNqcBA+yvim8QZ0Qk8vKeJEk4HW1z bJ1vw2WPdM9s1bLHvy6A4OravmR8r+Qr7VdoKwsN5fuV0ks19BB0cMLv0a52jRhG epBDPn/i23Ecemh3hgHYdZ2ebFcYGiU0B43SFd7Qg1DhBB+02uRRAUbeyw+QcUrX v4iGdyeXijIVN/qfY5OwmgIMajsYTXVxiY1l/LQoip5w9cAGnEaDUBQ8P6SSSB1T uG+zvZudEghRnOi/7SvioeQ/9bQwRtJSXN5wCzSnRDxMY6zDiBJ4k4ejS/r9m25m SuWsWgW+F8iU8p2uvcOydJomzS9sFuZ91RYHNV1BVVBK0fUqLv1w2kpkVD/9q89f rdHttMVNmCEPSIZkA6IYgDnIz5A68tceewW5N9e6IQeaeFQVqYM= =mH+Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jaTU8Y2VLE5tlY1O--