qemu-arm
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH for-7.0] hw: Add compat machines for 7.0


From: Cornelia Huck
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-7.0] hw: Add compat machines for 7.0
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:13:55 +0100
User-agent: Notmuch/0.34 (https://notmuchmail.org)

On Wed, Dec 08 2021, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> Add 7.0 machine types for arm/i440fx/q35/s390x/spapr.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> ---
>  hw/arm/virt.c              |  9 ++++++++-
>  hw/core/machine.c          |  3 +++
>  hw/i386/pc.c               |  3 +++
>  hw/i386/pc_piix.c          | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  hw/i386/pc_q35.c           | 13 ++++++++++++-
>  hw/ppc/spapr.c             | 15 +++++++++++++--
>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  include/hw/boards.h        |  3 +++
>  include/hw/i386/pc.h       |  3 +++
>  9 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>

(...)

> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
> index a2ef40ecbc24..fccde2ef39f6 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
> @@ -94,6 +94,9 @@
>  #include "trace.h"
>  #include CONFIG_DEVICES
>  
> +GlobalProperty pc_compat_6_2[] = {};
> +const size_t pc_compat_6_2_len = G_N_ELEMENTS(pc_compat_6_2);
> +
>  GlobalProperty pc_compat_6_1[] = {
>      { TYPE_X86_CPU, "hv-version-id-build", "0x1bbc" },
>      { TYPE_X86_CPU, "hv-version-id-major", "0x0006" },
> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> index 223dd3e05d15..b03026bf0648 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ static void pc_i440fx_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
>      machine_class_allow_dynamic_sysbus_dev(m, TYPE_VMBUS_BRIDGE);
>  }
>  
> -static void pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> +static void pc_i440fx_7_0_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
>  {
>      PCMachineClass *pcmc = PC_MACHINE_CLASS(m);
>      pc_i440fx_machine_options(m);
> @@ -422,6 +422,18 @@ static void pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass 
> *m)
>      pcmc->default_cpu_version = 1;
>  }
>  
> +DEFINE_I440FX_MACHINE(v7_0, "pc-i440fx-7.0", NULL,
> +                      pc_i440fx_7_0_machine_options);
> +
> +static void pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> +{
> +    pc_i440fx_machine_options(m);
> +    m->alias = NULL;
> +    m->is_default = false;
> +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, hw_compat_6_2, hw_compat_6_2_len);
> +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, pc_compat_6_2, pc_compat_6_2_len);
> +}
> +
>  DEFINE_I440FX_MACHINE(v6_2, "pc-i440fx-6.2", NULL,
>                        pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options);
>  
> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
> index e1e100316d93..6b66eb16bb64 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
> @@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ static void pc_q35_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
>      m->max_cpus = 288;
>  }
>  
> -static void pc_q35_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> +static void pc_q35_7_0_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
>  {
>      PCMachineClass *pcmc = PC_MACHINE_CLASS(m);
>      pc_q35_machine_options(m);
> @@ -368,6 +368,17 @@ static void pc_q35_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
>      pcmc->default_cpu_version = 1;
>  }
>  
> +DEFINE_Q35_MACHINE(v7_0, "pc-q35-7.0", NULL,
> +                   pc_q35_7_0_machine_options);
> +
> +static void pc_q35_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> +{
> +    pc_q35_machine_options(m);
> +    m->alias = NULL;
> +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, hw_compat_6_2, hw_compat_6_2_len);
> +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, pc_compat_6_2, pc_compat_6_2_len);
> +}
> +
>  DEFINE_Q35_MACHINE(v6_2, "pc-q35-6.2", NULL,
>                     pc_q35_6_2_machine_options);
>  

So, this apparently causes some problems with one of the avocado tests:

162-tests/avocado/x86_cpu_model_versions.py:X86CPUModelAliases.test_4_1_alias 
-> AssertionError: None != 'Cascadelake-Server-v1' : Cascadelake-Server must be 
an alias of Cascadelake-Server-v1

(full output at https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/1893456217)

I have looked at the patch again and do not see what might be wrong (has
something changed with the cpu model versioning recently?)

Does anyone else (especially the x86 folks) have an idea?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]