KVM requires a cpu based on (at least) the ARMv7 architecture.
The following CPUs are disabled:
* ARMv4
- StrongARM (SA1100/1110)
- OMAP1510 (TI925T)
* ARMv5
- ARM926
- ARM946
- ARM1026
- XScale (PXA250/255/260/261/262/270)
* ARMv6
- ARM1136
- ARM1176
- ARM11MPCore
- Cortex-M0
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
---
v2: fixed misplaced #endif (rth), list cpus
---
target/arm/cpu.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c
index 2399c14471..f69780147c 100644
--- a/target/arm/cpu.c
+++ b/target/arm/cpu.c
@@ -1678,6 +1678,8 @@ static ObjectClass *arm_cpu_class_by_name(const char *cpu_model)
/* CPU models. These are not needed for the AArch64 linux-user build. */
#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) || !defined(TARGET_AARCH64)
+#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
+
static void arm926_initfn(Object *obj)
{
ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
@@ -1900,6 +1902,8 @@ static void cortex_m0_initfn(Object *obj)
cpu->midr = 0x410cc200;
}
+#endif
+
static void cortex_m3_initfn(Object *obj)
{
ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
@@ -2283,6 +2287,8 @@ static void cortex_a15_initfn(Object *obj)
define_arm_cp_regs(cpu, cortexa15_cp_reginfo);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
+
static void ti925t_initfn(Object *obj)
{
ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
@@ -2451,6 +2457,8 @@ static void pxa270c5_initfn(Object *obj)
cpu->reset_sctlr = 0x00000078;
}
+#endif
+
#ifndef TARGET_AARCH64
/* -cpu max: if KVM is enabled, like -cpu host (best possible with this host);
* otherwise, a CPU with as many features enabled as our emulation supports.
@@ -2523,6 +2531,7 @@ struct ARMCPUInfo {
static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) || !defined(TARGET_AARCH64)
+#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
{ .name = "arm926", .initfn = arm926_initfn },
{ .name = "arm946", .initfn = arm946_initfn },
{ .name = "arm1026", .initfn = arm1026_initfn },
@@ -2536,6 +2545,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
{ .name = "arm11mpcore", .initfn = arm11mpcore_initfn },
{ .name = "cortex-m0", .initfn = cortex_m0_initfn,
.class_init = arm_v7m_class_init },
+#endif
{ .name = "cortex-m3", .initfn = cortex_m3_initfn,
.class_init = arm_v7m_class_init },
{ .name = "cortex-m4", .initfn = cortex_m4_initfn,
@@ -2548,6 +2558,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
{ .name = "cortex-a8", .initfn = cortex_a8_initfn },
{ .name = "cortex-a9", .initfn = cortex_a9_initfn },
{ .name = "cortex-a15", .initfn = cortex_a15_initfn },
+#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
{ .name = "ti925t", .initfn = ti925t_initfn },
{ .name = "sa1100", .initfn = sa1100_initfn },
{ .name = "sa1110", .initfn = sa1110_initfn },
@@ -2564,6 +2575,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
{ .name = "pxa270-b1", .initfn = pxa270b1_initfn },
{ .name = "pxa270-c0", .initfn = pxa270c0_initfn },
{ .name = "pxa270-c5", .initfn = pxa270c5_initfn },
+#endif
#ifndef TARGET_AARCH64
{ .name = "max", .initfn = arm_max_initfn },
#endif
--
2.20.1
On 03/09/2019 13.47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> KVM requires a cpu based on (at least) the ARMv7 architecture.
>
> The following CPUs are disabled:
>
> * ARMv4
>
> - StrongARM (SA1100/1110)
> - OMAP1510 (TI925T)
>
> * ARMv5
>
> - ARM926
> - ARM946
> - ARM1026
> - XScale (PXA250/255/260/261/262/270)
>
> * ARMv6
>
> - ARM1136
> - ARM1176
> - ARM11MPCore
> - Cortex-M0
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> ---
> v2: fixed misplaced #endif (rth), list cpus
> ---
> target/arm/cpu.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c
> index 2399c14471..f69780147c 100644
> --- a/target/arm/cpu.c
> +++ b/target/arm/cpu.c
> @@ -1678,6 +1678,8 @@ static ObjectClass *arm_cpu_class_by_name(const char *cpu_model)
> /* CPU models. These are not needed for the AArch64 linux-user build. */
> #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) || !defined(TARGET_AARCH64)
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
> +
> static void arm926_initfn(Object *obj)
> {
> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
> @@ -1900,6 +1902,8 @@ static void cortex_m0_initfn(Object *obj)
> cpu->midr = 0x410cc200;
> }
>
> +#endif
> +
> static void cortex_m3_initfn(Object *obj)
> {
> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
> @@ -2283,6 +2287,8 @@ static void cortex_a15_initfn(Object *obj)
> define_arm_cp_regs(cpu, cortexa15_cp_reginfo);
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
> +
> static void ti925t_initfn(Object *obj)
> {
> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
> @@ -2451,6 +2457,8 @@ static void pxa270c5_initfn(Object *obj)
> cpu->reset_sctlr = 0x00000078;
> }
>
> +#endif
> +
> #ifndef TARGET_AARCH64
> /* -cpu max: if KVM is enabled, like -cpu host (best possible with this host);
> * otherwise, a CPU with as many features enabled as our emulation supports.
> @@ -2523,6 +2531,7 @@ struct ARMCPUInfo {
>
> static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
> #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) || !defined(TARGET_AARCH64)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
> { .name = "arm926", .initfn = arm926_initfn },
> { .name = "arm946", .initfn = arm946_initfn },
> { .name = "arm1026", .initfn = arm1026_initfn },
> @@ -2536,6 +2545,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
> { .name = "arm11mpcore", .initfn = arm11mpcore_initfn },
> { .name = "cortex-m0", .initfn = cortex_m0_initfn,
> .class_init = arm_v7m_class_init },
> +#endif
> { .name = "cortex-m3", .initfn = cortex_m3_initfn,
> .class_init = arm_v7m_class_init },
> { .name = "cortex-m4", .initfn = cortex_m4_initfn,
> @@ -2548,6 +2558,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
> { .name = "cortex-a8", .initfn = cortex_a8_initfn },
> { .name = "cortex-a9", .initfn = cortex_a9_initfn },
> { .name = "cortex-a15", .initfn = cortex_a15_initfn },
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
> { .name = "ti925t", .initfn = ti925t_initfn },
> { .name = "sa1100", .initfn = sa1100_initfn },
> { .name = "sa1110", .initfn = sa1110_initfn },
> @@ -2564,6 +2575,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
> { .name = "pxa270-b1", .initfn = pxa270b1_initfn },
> { .name = "pxa270-c0", .initfn = pxa270c0_initfn },
> { .name = "pxa270-c5", .initfn = pxa270c5_initfn },
> +#endif
> #ifndef TARGET_AARCH64
> { .name = "max", .initfn = arm_max_initfn },
> #endif
>
All that #ifdeffery is a little bit ugly. I wonder whether we could
solve this by moving the CPU registrations to separate files which then
only get compiled if the corresponding CONFIG_ARM_Vx switch is set.
That reminds me of a patch series of mine where I tried to make the code
compilable without CONFIG_ARM_V7M ... unfortunately, I never found
enough spare time to finish and publish it... I'll have a try to see
whether I can rebase it and send it as an RFC or so.
Thomas
On 9/3/19 2:10 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 03/09/2019 13.47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> KVM requires a cpu based on (at least) the ARMv7 architecture.
>>
>> The following CPUs are disabled:
>>
>> * ARMv4
>>
>> - StrongARM (SA1100/1110)
>> - OMAP1510 (TI925T)
>>
>> * ARMv5
>>
>> - ARM926
>> - ARM946
>> - ARM1026
>> - XScale (PXA250/255/260/261/262/270)
>>
>> * ARMv6
>>
>> - ARM1136
>> - ARM1176
>> - ARM11MPCore
>> - Cortex-M0
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> v2: fixed misplaced #endif (rth), list cpus
>> ---
>> target/arm/cpu.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c
>> index 2399c14471..f69780147c 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/cpu.c
>> +++ b/target/arm/cpu.c
>> @@ -1678,6 +1678,8 @@ static ObjectClass *arm_cpu_class_by_name(const char *cpu_model)
>> /* CPU models. These are not needed for the AArch64 linux-user build. */
>> #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) || !defined(TARGET_AARCH64)
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
>> +
>> static void arm926_initfn(Object *obj)
>> {
>> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
>> @@ -1900,6 +1902,8 @@ static void cortex_m0_initfn(Object *obj)
>> cpu->midr = 0x410cc200;
>> }
>>
>> +#endif
>> +
>> static void cortex_m3_initfn(Object *obj)
>> {
>> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
>> @@ -2283,6 +2287,8 @@ static void cortex_a15_initfn(Object *obj)
>> define_arm_cp_regs(cpu, cortexa15_cp_reginfo);
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
>> +
>> static void ti925t_initfn(Object *obj)
>> {
>> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
>> @@ -2451,6 +2457,8 @@ static void pxa270c5_initfn(Object *obj)
>> cpu->reset_sctlr = 0x00000078;
>> }
>>
>> +#endif
>> +
>> #ifndef TARGET_AARCH64
>> /* -cpu max: if KVM is enabled, like -cpu host (best possible with this host);
>> * otherwise, a CPU with as many features enabled as our emulation supports.
>> @@ -2523,6 +2531,7 @@ struct ARMCPUInfo {
>>
>> static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
>> #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) || !defined(TARGET_AARCH64)
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
>> { .name = "arm926", .initfn = arm926_initfn },
>> { .name = "arm946", .initfn = arm946_initfn },
>> { .name = "arm1026", .initfn = arm1026_initfn },
>> @@ -2536,6 +2545,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
>> { .name = "arm11mpcore", .initfn = arm11mpcore_initfn },
>> { .name = "cortex-m0", .initfn = cortex_m0_initfn,
>> .class_init = arm_v7m_class_init },
>> +#endif
>> { .name = "cortex-m3", .initfn = cortex_m3_initfn,
>> .class_init = arm_v7m_class_init },
>> { .name = "cortex-m4", .initfn = cortex_m4_initfn,
>> @@ -2548,6 +2558,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
>> { .name = "cortex-a8", .initfn = cortex_a8_initfn },
>> { .name = "cortex-a9", .initfn = cortex_a9_initfn },
>> { .name = "cortex-a15", .initfn = cortex_a15_initfn },
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
>> { .name = "ti925t", .initfn = ti925t_initfn },
>> { .name = "sa1100", .initfn = sa1100_initfn },
>> { .name = "sa1110", .initfn = sa1110_initfn },
>> @@ -2564,6 +2575,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
>> { .name = "pxa270-b1", .initfn = pxa270b1_initfn },
>> { .name = "pxa270-c0", .initfn = pxa270c0_initfn },
>> { .name = "pxa270-c5", .initfn = pxa270c5_initfn },
>> +#endif
>> #ifndef TARGET_AARCH64
>> { .name = "max", .initfn = arm_max_initfn },
>> #endif
>>
>
> All that #ifdeffery is a little bit ugly. I wonder whether we could
> solve this by moving the CPU registrations to separate files which then
> only get compiled if the corresponding CONFIG_ARM_Vx switch is set.
I tried splitting arm_cpus[] and move the ifdef in
arm_cpu_register_types(), but the resulting diff is much bigger and it
only reduces from 4 '#ifdef CONFIG_TCG' to 2...
I'll see what thinks Peter first.
> That reminds me of a patch series of mine where I tried to make the code
> compilable without CONFIG_ARM_V7M ... unfortunately, I never found
> enough spare time to finish and publish it... I'll have a try to see
> whether I can rebase it and send it as an RFC or so.
Well, this is the same goal of this series... So regarding on Peter's
comments I might wait on your work.
Regards,
Phil.
On 03/09/2019 15.37, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 9/3/19 2:10 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 03/09/2019 13.47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: [...] >> That reminds me of a patch series of mine where I tried to make the code >> compilable without CONFIG_ARM_V7M ... unfortunately, I never found >> enough spare time to finish and publish it... I'll have a try to see >> whether I can rebase it and send it as an RFC or so. > > Well, this is the same goal of this series... So regarding on Peter's > comments I might wait on your work. I noticed that you did most work of my old series with the new m_helper.c file already :-) ... so I'll check whether I can re-do my other work around these changes... Thomas
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.