On 15.08.2013, at 12:52, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 15.08.2013 10:45, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>
>> On 15.08.2013, at 10:06, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/15/2013 05:55 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15.08.2013, at 09:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IBM POWERPC processors encode PVR as a CPU family in higher 16 bits and
>>>>> a CPU version in lower 16 bits. Since there is no significant change
>>>>> in behavior between versions, there is no point to add every single CPU
>>>>> version in QEMU's CPU list. Also, new CPU versions of already supported
>>>>> CPU won't break the existing code.
>>>>>
>>>>> This adds a PVR mask support which means that aliases are replaced with
>>>>> another layer in POWERPC CPU class hierarchy. The patch adds intermediate
>>>>> POWER7, POWER7+ and POWER8 CPU classes and makes use of those in
>>>>> specific versioned POWERPC CPUs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes:
>>>>> v3:
>>>>> * renamed macros to describe the functionality better
>>>>> * added default PVR value for the powerpc cpu family (what alias used to
>>>>> do)
>>>>>
>>>>> v2:
>>>>> * aliases are replaced with another level in class hierarchy
>>>>> ---
>>>>> target-ppc/cpu-models.c | 54
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>>> target-ppc/cpu-models.h | 7 ++++++
>>>>> target-ppc/cpu-qom.h | 2 ++
>>>>> target-ppc/translate_init.c | 4 ++--
>>>>> 4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>>>>> index 8dea560..e48004b 100644
>>>>> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>>>>> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
>>>>> @@ -35,7 +35,8 @@
>>>>> /* PowerPC CPU definitions
>>>>> */
>>>>> #define POWERPC_DEF_PREFIX(pvr, svr, type)
>>>>> \
>>>>> glue(glue(glue(glue(pvr, _), svr), _), type)
>>>>> -#define POWERPC_DEF_SVR(_name, _desc, _pvr, _svr, _type)
>>>>> \
>>>>> +#define POWERPC_DEF_SVR_MASK(_name, _desc, _pvr, _pvr_mask,
>>>>> _pvr_default, \
>>>>> + _svr, _type, _parent)
>>>>> \
>>>>> static void
>>>>> \
>>>>> glue(POWERPC_DEF_PREFIX(_pvr, _svr, _type), _cpu_class_init)
>>>>> \
>>>>> (ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>>>> \
>
> Quite obviously this heavily conflicts with my patchset for Prerna's
> problem...
>
>>>>> @@ -44,6 +45,8 @@
>>>>> PowerPCCPUClass *pcc = POWERPC_CPU_CLASS(oc);
>>>>> \
>>>>>
>>>>> \
>>>>> pcc->pvr = _pvr;
>>>>> \
>>>>> + pcc->pvr_default = _pvr_default;
>>>>> \
>>>>> + pcc->pvr_mask = _pvr_mask;
>>>>> \
>>>>> pcc->svr = _svr;
>>>>> \
>>>>> dc->desc = _desc;
>>>>> \
>>>>> }
>>>>> \
>>>>> @@ -51,7 +54,7 @@
>>>>> static const TypeInfo
>>>>> \
>>>>> glue(POWERPC_DEF_PREFIX(_pvr, _svr, _type), _cpu_type_info) = {
>>>>> \
>>>>> .name = _name "-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU,
>>>>> \
>>>>> - .parent = stringify(_type) "-family-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU,
>>>>> \
>>>>> + .parent = _parent,
>>>>> \
>>>>> .class_init =
>>>>> \
>>>>> glue(POWERPC_DEF_PREFIX(_pvr, _svr, _type), _cpu_class_init),
>>>>> \
>>>>> };
>>>>> \
>>>>> @@ -66,9 +69,24 @@
>>>>> type_init(
>>>>> \
>>>>> glue(POWERPC_DEF_PREFIX(_pvr, _svr, _type), _cpu_register_types))
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define POWERPC_DEF_SVR(_name, _desc, _pvr, _svr, _type)
>>>>> \
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_SVR_MASK(_name, _desc, _pvr, CPU_POWERPC_DEFAULT_MASK,
>>>>> 0, \
>>>>> + _svr, _type,
>>>>> \
>>>>> + stringify(_type) "-family-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU)
>>>>> +
>>>>> #define POWERPC_DEF(_name, _pvr, _type, _desc)
>>>>> \
>>>>> POWERPC_DEF_SVR(_name, _desc, _pvr, POWERPC_SVR_NONE, _type)
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY(_name, _pvr, _pvr_mask, _pvr_default,
>>>>> \
>>>>> + _type, _desc)
>>>>> \
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_SVR_MASK(_name, _desc, _pvr, _pvr_mask, _pvr_default,
>>>>> \
>>>>> + POWERPC_SVR_NONE, _type,
>>>>> \
>>>>> + stringify(_type) "-family-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU)
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY_MEMBER(_name, _pvr, _type, _desc, _parent)
>>>>> \
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_SVR_MASK(_name, _desc, _pvr, CPU_POWERPC_DEFAULT_MASK,
>>>>> 0, \
>>>>> + POWERPC_SVR_NONE, _type, _parent)
>>>>> +
>>>>> /* Embedded PowerPC
>>>>> */
>>>>> /* PowerPC 401 family
>>>>> */
>>>>> POWERPC_DEF("401", CPU_POWERPC_401, 401,
>>>>> @@ -1133,16 +1151,25 @@
>>>>> POWERPC_DEF("POWER6A", CPU_POWERPC_POWER6A, POWER6,
>>>>> "POWER6A")
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> - POWERPC_DEF("POWER7_v2.0", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v20,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> - "POWER7 v2.0")
>>>>> - POWERPC_DEF("POWER7_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v21,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> - "POWER7 v2.1")
>>>>> - POWERPC_DEF("POWER7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> - "POWER7 v2.3")
>>>>> - POWERPC_DEF("POWER7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> - "POWER7+ v2.1")
>>>>> - POWERPC_DEF("POWER8_v1.0", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_v10,
>>>>> POWER8,
>>>>> - "POWER8 v1.0")
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY("POWER7", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_MASK,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23,
>>>>> + POWER7, "POWER7")
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY_MEMBER("POWER7_v2.0", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v20,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> + "POWER7 v2.0", "POWER7-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU)
>
> No. Alex wanted these macros to abstract all the QOM business, so make
> that "POWER7" if you need it here and assembly the type name inside the
> macro. I'll have a closer look later. We already have the POWER7
> argument so I find this redundant. If we need more families we can
> simply add them, such as POWER7P.
>
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY_MEMBER("POWER7_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v21,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> + "POWER7 v2.1", "POWER7-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU)
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY_MEMBER("POWER7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> + "POWER7 v2.3", "POWER7-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU)
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY("POWER7+", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_MASK,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21,
>>>>> + POWER7, "POWER7")
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY_MEMBER("POWER7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21,
>>>>> POWER7,
>>>>> + "POWER7+ v2.1", "POWER7+-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU)
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY("POWER8", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_MASK,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_v10,
>>>>> + POWER8, "POWER8")
>>>>> + POWERPC_DEF_FAMILY_MEMBER("POWER8_v1.0", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_v10,
>>>>> POWER8,
>>>>> + "POWER8 v1.0", "POWER8-" TYPE_POWERPC_CPU)
>>>>> POWERPC_DEF("970", CPU_POWERPC_970, 970,
>>>>> "PowerPC 970")
>>>>> POWERPC_DEF("970fx_v1.0", CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v10, 970FX,
>>>>> @@ -1389,9 +1416,6 @@ PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[] = {
>>>>> { "POWER3+", "631" },
>>>>> { "POWER5gr", "POWER5" },
>>>>> { "POWER5gs", "POWER5+" },
>>>>> - { "POWER7", "POWER7_v2.3" },
>>>>> - { "POWER7+", "POWER7+_v2.1" },
>>>>> - { "POWER8", "POWER8_v1.0" },
>>>>> { "970fx", "970fx_v3.1" },
>>>>> { "970mp", "970mp_v1.1" },
>>>>> { "Apache", "RS64" },
>>>>> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.h b/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
>>>>> index d9145d1..2233053 100644
>>>>> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
>>>>> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
>>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ extern PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[];
>>>>> /*****************************************************************************/
>>>>> /* PVR definitions for most known PowerPC
>>>>> */
>>>>> enum {
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_DEFAULT_MASK = 0xFFFFFFFF,
>>>>> /* PowerPC 401 family */
>>>>> /* Generic PowerPC 401 */
>>>>> #define CPU_POWERPC_401 CPU_POWERPC_401G2
>>>>> @@ -557,6 +558,12 @@ enum {
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23 = 0x003F0203,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21 = 0x004A0201,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_v10 = 0x004B0100,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7 = 0x003F0000,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_MASK = 0xFFFF0000,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P = 0x004A0000,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_MASK = 0xFFFF0000,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER8 = 0x004B0000,
>>>>> + CPU_POWERPC_POWER8_MASK = 0xFFFF0000,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_970 = 0x00390202,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v10 = 0x00391100,
>>>>> CPU_POWERPC_970FX_v20 = 0x003C0200,
>>>>> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h
>>>>> index f3c710a..a1a712c 100644
>>>>> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h
>>>>> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h
>>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ typedef struct PowerPCCPUClass {
>>>>> void (*parent_reset)(CPUState *cpu);
>>>>>
>>>>> uint32_t pvr;
>>>>> + uint32_t pvr_default;
>>>>> + uint32_t pvr_mask;
>>>>> uint32_t svr;
>>>>> uint64_t insns_flags;
>>>>> uint64_t insns_flags2;
>>>>> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>>>> index 13b290c..e73792d 100644
>>>>> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>>>> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>>>> @@ -7309,7 +7309,7 @@ static void init_ppc_proc(PowerPCCPU *cpu)
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> SPR_NOACCESS,
>>>>> &spr_read_generic, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>>>> - pcc->pvr);
>>>>> + pcc->pvr_default ? pcc->pvr_default : pcc->pvr);
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This means that -cpu host on a POWER7_v20 system will still return
>>>> POWER7_v23 and thus expose a different CPU inside the guest than
>>>> expected with PR KVM, no?
>>>
>>>
>>> ./qemu-system-ppc64 \
>>> -cpu \
>>> POWER7_v2.0 \
>>
>> This is not -cpu host, is it? :)
>>
>>> -S \
>>> -m "1024" \
>>> -machine "pseries,usb=off" \
>>> -nographic \
>>> -vga "none" \
>>> -enable-kvm \
>>> -kernel "host.vmlinux" \
>>> -initrd "1.cpio"
>>>
>>> QEMU 1.5.91 monitor - type 'help' for more information
>>> (qemu) info registers
>>> [...]
>>> FPSCR 0000000000000000
>>> SRR0 0000000000000000 SRR1 0000000000000000 PVR 00000000003f0200
>>> [...]
>>> (qemu)
>>>
>>> PVR is 003f0200 which is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there any case where major=0 minor=0 is valid? If not, we could add a
>>>> check in the class constructor and then default to sane values when we
>>>> hit this case. We'll have to add logic there later anyways if we want to
>>>> allow the user to manually specify major and minor numbers.
>>>
>>> As I was told and then noticed in the kernel (and sorry for my ignorance if
>>> I am wrong), the lower 16 bits are major/minor numbers only for IBM POWERPC
>>> CPUs and other CPUs may use different number of bits for this purpose. So I
>>> would not parse those numbers and carry them as major/minor version in QEMU
>>> and rather use some fixed sane value for a whole family for the cases when
>>> the user does not really care about the exact chip version.
>>
>> Yes, I think it makes sense to keep the full PVR around when we want to be
>> specific. What I'm referring to is class specific logic that can assemble
>> major/minor numbers from the command line. So
>>
>> -cpu POWER7,major=2,minor=0
>>
>> would result in a PVR value that is identical to POWER7_v2.0. The assembly
>> of this PVR value is class specific, because different classes of CPUs have
>> different semantics for their major and minor numbers.
>>
>> That way in the future we won't have to add any new version specific CPU
>> types but instead the user can assemble those himself, making everyone's
>> life a lot easier.
>>
>> My point was that if we have that logic, we could at the same place just say
>> "if my major/minor is 0, default to something reasonable".
>>
>> But let's ask Andreas whether he has a better idea here :).
>
> If you read the previous discussion on the initial POWER7+ patch, I
> believe I had proposed major-version / minor-version or so properties at
> family level, to be able to use different implementations or none at all
> where we don't see a scheme.
Sounds like a good idea.
> However if we want to use that from -cpu as
> in your example above, we would have to implement custom parsing code
> for cpu_model, which I would rather avoid, given we want to replace it
> with -device in the future.
Can't we make this generic QOM property parsing code?
-cpu POWER7,major-version=2,minor-version=0
would do
cpu = new POWER7(major-version = 2, minor_version = 0);
and then the POWER7 class can decide what to do with this additional
information?
> But maybe I didn't fully catch the exact question. :)
>
> The custom parenting strikes me as a wrong consequence of us not having
> fully QOM'ified / cleaned up the family classes yet. We had discussed
> two ways: Either have, e.g., POWER7+ inherit from POWER7 (which looks
> like the only reason this is being done here) and/or have, e.g., POWER5+
> copy and modify 970fx values via #defines.
IIUC the family parenting is orthogonal to this. Here we're looking at having
families as classes at all. Currently we don't - we only have explicit
versioned implementations as classes. Whether we have
PowerPC
`- POWER7
`- POWER7+
`- POWER7+ v1.0
or
PowerPC
`- POWER7+
`- POWER7+ v1.0
is a different question I think.
Alex
