On 05/03/2018 08:36 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> 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".
ah. this is why the tests are failing then :
tests/boot-serial-test.c: { "ppc64", "mac99", "", "PowerPC,970FX" },
C.
>
>>> 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.
>
