On 03.12.2012, at 17:47, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 12/01/2012 07:58:25 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> In BookE, EPCR is defined and valid when either the HV or the 64bit
>> category are implemented. Reflect this in the field definition.
>> Today the only KVM target on 64bit is HV enabled, so there is no
>> change in actual source code, but this keeps the code closer to the
>> spec and doesn't build up artificial road blocks for a PR KVM
>> on 64bit.
> [snip]
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 9 +++++++--
>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 62fbd38..3480526 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -405,14 +405,19 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV
>> u32 host_mas4;
>> u32 host_mas6;
>> - u32 shadow_epcr;
>> - u32 epcr;
>> u32 shadow_msrp;
>> u32 eplc;
>> u32 epsc;
>> u32 oldpir;
>> #endif
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV) || defined(CONFIG_64BIT)
>> + u32 shadow_epcr;
>> + u32 epcr;
>> +#endif
>> +#endif
>
> On a PR-mode implementation, why would we be have a shadow_epcr? It would
> always be set based on the host kernel, just like when running any other
> userspace process.
Right - we could simply set MSR_CM. I'll move shadow_epcr back into the HV only
bit above.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
