On Wed, Jun 30 2021, Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 30.06.21 15:32, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 22.06.21 22:19, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> This defines 5 new facilities and the new 3931 and 3932 machines. >>> As before the name is not yet known and we do use gen16a and gen16b. >>> The new features are part of the full model. >>> >>> The default model is still empty (same as z15) and will be added >>> in a separate patch at a later point in time. >>> >>> Also add the dependencies of new facilities and as a fix for z15 add >>> a dependency from S390_FEAT_VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH to >>> S390_VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc | 5 +++++ >>> target/s390x/cpu_models.c | 6 ++++++ >>> target/s390x/gen-features.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc >>> b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc >>> index 7db3449e0434..c71caee74411 100644 >>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc >>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc >>> @@ -109,6 +109,11 @@ DEF_FEAT(VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH, "vxpdeh", STFL, >>> 152, "Vector-Packed-Decimal- >>> DEF_FEAT(MSA_EXT_9, "msa9-base", STFL, 155, >>> "Message-security-assist-extension-9 facility (excluding subfunctions)") >>> DEF_FEAT(ETOKEN, "etoken", STFL, 156, "Etoken facility") >>> DEF_FEAT(UNPACK, "unpack", STFL, 161, "Unpack facility") >>> +DEF_FEAT(NNPA, "nnpa", STFL, 165, "NNPA facility") >>> +DEF_FEAT(VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH2, "vxpdeh2", STFL, 192, >>> "Vector-Packed-Decimal-Enhancement facility 2") >>> +DEF_FEAT(BEAR, "bear", STFL, 193, "BEAR-enhancement facility") >> >> Usually we use "eh" for enhancement. Which would result in "beareh" or >> alternatively "beh". But maybe the "enhancement" part is not actually an >> enhancement, but instead this facility is more like the etoken or unpack >> facility ... > > There was no bear facility (I think it was part of PER3). > beareh or beh would be fine with me. > >> >>> +DEF_FEAT(RDP, "rdp", STFL, 194, "Reset-DAT-protection facility") >>> +DEF_FEAT(ACTIVITY, "activity", STFL, 196, >>> "Processor-Activity-Instrumentation facility") >> >> Would "pai" be a more appropriate feature name? > > pai would be ok for me as well. > > Conny, do you want to replace "activity" with "pai" and "bear" with "beareh" > in your tree? I can certainly edit this to a naming everyone agrees with (no strong opinions from my side). [Although I rather like large animals in cpu facilities 8)]
