diff mbox

[V1,4/4] target-arm: Hook up TCG vPMU with CPU pmu option

Message ID 1484204658-28058-5-git-send-email-wei@redhat.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Wei Huang Jan. 12, 2017, 7:04 a.m. UTC 
Remove the checking of kvm_enabled(). With this, .pmu option can also
control vPMU under TCG mode.

Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com>
---
 target/arm/cpu.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Peter Maydell Jan. 17, 2017, 1:49 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 12 January 2017 at 07:04, Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com> wrote:
> Remove the checking of kvm_enabled(). With this, .pmu option can also
> control vPMU under TCG mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com>
> ---
>  target/arm/cpu.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c
> index f5cb30a..2f87a4b 100644
> --- a/target/arm/cpu.c
> +++ b/target/arm/cpu.c
> @@ -692,7 +692,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>          cpu->id_aa64pfr0 &= ~0xf000;
>      }
>
> -    if (!cpu->has_pmu || !kvm_enabled()) {
> +    if (!cpu->has_pmu) {
>          cpu->has_pmu = false;
>          unset_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_PMU);
>      }

I notice that the ARM_FEATURE_PMU bit doesn't seem to control whether
we actually provide the TCG PMU registers, so this patch is OK but
doesn't actually change the behaviour of the emulated cpu AFAICT.

Don't we now need to remove the hack where we mask out the PMUVer field
of ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 ?

thanks
-- PMM
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c
index f5cb30a..2f87a4b 100644
--- a/target/arm/cpu.c
+++ b/target/arm/cpu.c
@@ -692,7 +692,7 @@  static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
         cpu->id_aa64pfr0 &= ~0xf000;
     }
 
-    if (!cpu->has_pmu || !kvm_enabled()) {
+    if (!cpu->has_pmu) {
         cpu->has_pmu = false;
         unset_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_PMU);
     }