On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 16:46, Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On 7/13/23 11:34, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 16:28, Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 7/13/23 10:50, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> I'm not a super-fan of hacking around the fact that LDP > >>> to hardware registers isn't supported in specific device > >>> models, though... > >> > >> What does this mean for this effort here? > > > > Usually we say "fix the guest to not try to access hardware > > registers with silly load/store instruction types". The other > > option would be "put in a large amount of effort to support > > emulating those instructions in QEMU userspace when KVM/HVF/etc > > trap and punt them to us". For the last decade or so we have > > taken the first of these approaches :-) > > Is Microsoft likely to react to use telling them "fix the guest"?
They have on occasion in the past, yes. The other outstanding question here is if this TPM device should be a sysbus one at all (i.e. not i2c), which might render this part moot. thanks -- PMM
