Hi, See below.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pavel Fedin [mailto:p.fe...@samsung.com] > Sent: Friday, 29 May, 2015 9:45 AM > To: Shlomo Pongratz; qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Cc: peter.mayd...@linaro.org; 'Ashok Kumar' > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Use Aff1 with mpidr > > Hi! > > > I see that you added mpidr to ARMCpu and initialized it in virt.c then > > you use it in > mpidr_read. > > Thus you must fix all other virtual machines in hw/arm not just virt.c > > as it is not > initialized for > > them. > > The only change in virt.c is: > --- cut --- > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c index a7f9a10..a1186c5 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c > @@ -317,7 +317,11 @@ static void fdt_add_cpu_nodes(const VirtBoardInfo > *vbi) > "enable-method", "psci"); > } > > - qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(vbi->fdt, nodename, "reg", cpu); > + /* > + * If cpus node's #address-cells property is set to 1 > + * The reg cell bits [23:0] must be set to bits [23:0] of MPIDR_EL1. > + */ > + qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(vbi->fdt, nodename, "reg", > + armcpu->mpidr); > g_free(nodename); > } > } > --- cut --- > So that it takes MPIDR instead of just CPU index. Theoretically - yes, may be > other machines should also be changed, but: > 1. They are 32-bit, so MPIDR == index for them, because there are no more > than 8 CPUs. > 2. Those machines AFAIK do not compose device tree by themselves. They > use pre-made ones instead, coming for example with kernel. > Only virt currently can be a 64-bit machine and cares about more than 8 > CPUs. > As to MPIDR initialization, it is done in arm_cpu_initfn(), therefore all ARM > CPUs get this automatically. There's no need to modify code for every > machine. I think we should take Igor's comment into account. The CPUS_PER_CLUSTER should not be a constant, and maybe should be initialized in arm_cpu_initfn and aarch64_{a53|a57}_initfn, as psci need to know it. > I would kindly ask you to use my patch in your next series, or base > something on it, if you dislike the implementation, but it's crucial for KVM > that MPIDR values can be obtained from the host. Your original > implementation cannot do this by design, this is why i made my own solution. > See kvm_arch_init_vcpu() in my patch - without this CPUs beyond #7 will not > power up in KVM. I understand that you suggest that I'll not use my 1 & 4 patches. I have no problem with that, but how do I commit? Should I write that the patch series is pending until your patch series is integrated? > And when are you planning to post v3? I am waiting for it to be integrated, > in > order to add KVM vGICv3. Otherwise i'm afraid there are too many collisions. I intend to release the V3 version during this week. I have some issues with the new groups code that was introduce to GICv2 but they are minor. > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Expert Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia >
