diff mbox series

[3/3] hw/arm/virt: Support host CPU type only when KVM or HVF is configured

Message ID 20230713054502.410911-4-gshan@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series hw/arm/virt: Use generic CPU invalidation | expand

Commit Message

Gavin Shan July 13, 2023, 5:45 a.m. UTC
The CPU type 'host-arm-cpu' class won't be registered until KVM or
HVF is configured in target/arm/cpu64.c. Support the corresponding
CPU type only when KVM or HVF is configured.

Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
---
 hw/arm/virt.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Cornelia Huck July 13, 2023, 12:46 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Jul 13 2023, Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:

> The CPU type 'host-arm-cpu' class won't be registered until KVM or
> HVF is configured in target/arm/cpu64.c. Support the corresponding
> CPU type only when KVM or HVF is configured.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> ---
>  hw/arm/virt.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> index 43d7772ffd..ad28634445 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> @@ -217,7 +217,9 @@ static const char *valid_cpu_types[] = {
>  #endif
>      ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a53"),
>      ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a57"),
> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM) || defined(CONFIG_HVF)
>      ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("host"),
> +#endif
>      ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("max"),
>      NULL
>  };

Doesn't the check in parse_cpu_option() already catch the case where
the "host" cpu model isn't registered? I might be getting lost in the
code flow, though.
Gavin Shan July 13, 2023, 1:16 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Connie,

On 7/13/23 22:46, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13 2023, Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> The CPU type 'host-arm-cpu' class won't be registered until KVM or
>> HVF is configured in target/arm/cpu64.c. Support the corresponding
>> CPU type only when KVM or HVF is configured.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   hw/arm/virt.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
>> index 43d7772ffd..ad28634445 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
>> @@ -217,7 +217,9 @@ static const char *valid_cpu_types[] = {
>>   #endif
>>       ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a53"),
>>       ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a57"),
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM) || defined(CONFIG_HVF)
>>       ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("host"),
>> +#endif
>>       ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("max"),
>>       NULL
>>   };
> 
> Doesn't the check in parse_cpu_option() already catch the case where
> the "host" cpu model isn't registered? I might be getting lost in the
> code flow, though.
> 

Right, it's guranteed that the needed CPU type (class) is registered by parse_cpu_option().
However, we have different story here. The CPU type invalidation intends to limit the CPU type
(class) into a range for the specific machine (board). Taking "cortex-a8-arm-cpu" as an example,
it's not expected by hw/arm/virt machines even it has been registered when we have CONFIG_TCG=y.
the list of supported CPU type (class) will be dumped by hw/core/machine.c::validate_cpu_type()
in PATCH[1], "host" is obviously invalid when we have CONFIG_KVM=n and CONFIG_HVF=n. We can't
tell user that "host" is supported, to confuse user.

Thanks,
Gavin
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
index 43d7772ffd..ad28634445 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
@@ -217,7 +217,9 @@  static const char *valid_cpu_types[] = {
 #endif
     ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a53"),
     ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("cortex-a57"),
+#if defined(CONFIG_KVM) || defined(CONFIG_HVF)
     ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("host"),
+#endif
     ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("max"),
     NULL
 };