On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:52:32AM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> 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.

It does, actually.  At least, as long as it's not strapped into "Apple
mode".

> > 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 ?

Enough.  The explicit RMA allocation stuff is a particular pain.

-- 
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