| Message ID | 20210730030821.231106-2-ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for Fujitsu A64FX processor | expand |
On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 04:08, Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > The ARM_FEATURE_A64FX property was added, > but there is no function that uses this property yet, > so it will be removed until a function that uses it is added. > > Signed-off-by: Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > --- > target/arm/cpu.h | 1 - > target/arm/cpu64.c | 1 - > 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h > index 1b0c7b91ec..9f0a5f84d5 100644 > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h > @@ -2145,7 +2145,6 @@ enum arm_features { > ARM_FEATURE_M_SECURITY, /* M profile Security Extension */ > ARM_FEATURE_M_MAIN, /* M profile Main Extension */ > ARM_FEATURE_V8_1M, /* M profile extras only in v8.1M and later */ > - ARM_FEATURE_A64FX, /* Fujitsu A64FX processor HPC extensions support */ > }; This feature doesn't exist in upstream QEMU, so this won't apply. For a v2 of a patch, the patches should be based on upstream, not on top of the v1 series. thanks -- PMM
Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> writes: > The ARM_FEATURE_A64FX property was added, > but there is no function that uses this property yet, > so it will be removed until a function that uses it is added. > > Signed-off-by: Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > --- > target/arm/cpu.h | 1 - > target/arm/cpu64.c | 1 - > 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h > index 1b0c7b91ec..9f0a5f84d5 100644 > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h > @@ -2145,7 +2145,6 @@ enum arm_features { > ARM_FEATURE_M_SECURITY, /* M profile Security Extension */ > ARM_FEATURE_M_MAIN, /* M profile Main Extension */ > ARM_FEATURE_V8_1M, /* M profile extras only in v8.1M and later */ > - ARM_FEATURE_A64FX, /* Fujitsu A64FX processor HPC extensions > support */ This is confusing because I can't see this feature flag in the mainline branch. Have you inadvertently based this series from an internal branch? > }; > > static inline int arm_feature(CPUARMState *env, int feature) > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu64.c b/target/arm/cpu64.c > index a15f9c0c55..dd72300e88 100644 > --- a/target/arm/cpu64.c > +++ b/target/arm/cpu64.c > @@ -856,7 +856,6 @@ static void aarch64_a64fx_initfn(Object *obj) > ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj); > > cpu->dtb_compatible = "arm,a64fx"; > - set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_A64FX); > set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_V8); > set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_NEON); > set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_GENERIC_TIMER);
> This feature doesn't exist in upstream QEMU, so this won't apply. > For a v2 of a patch, the patches should be based on upstream, not on top of the v1 > series. Thank you for your comment. I understood your point. Best regards. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 7:35 PM > To: Ishii, Shuuichirou/石井 周一郎 <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > Cc: qemu-arm <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>; QEMU Developers > <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] target-arm: delete ARM_FEATURE_A64FX > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 04:08, Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > wrote: > > > > The ARM_FEATURE_A64FX property was added, but there is no function > > that uses this property yet, so it will be removed until a function > > that uses it is added. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > > --- > > target/arm/cpu.h | 1 - > > target/arm/cpu64.c | 1 - > > 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h index > > 1b0c7b91ec..9f0a5f84d5 100644 > > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h > > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h > > @@ -2145,7 +2145,6 @@ enum arm_features { > > ARM_FEATURE_M_SECURITY, /* M profile Security Extension */ > > ARM_FEATURE_M_MAIN, /* M profile Main Extension */ > > ARM_FEATURE_V8_1M, /* M profile extras only in v8.1M and later */ > > - ARM_FEATURE_A64FX, /* Fujitsu A64FX processor HPC extensions > support */ > > }; > > This feature doesn't exist in upstream QEMU, so this won't apply. > > For a v2 of a patch, the patches should be based on upstream, not on top of the v1 > series. > > thanks > -- PMM
> This is confusing because I can't see this feature flag in the mainline branch. Have > you inadvertently based this series from an internal branch? I'm sorry for the confusion. My lack of understanding of how to handle v2 patches has led me to create a v2 patch series based on patches that have not been merged into upstream. I will repost this so that the implementation can be closed in one patch series. Best regards. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 7:36 PM > To: Ishii, Shuuichirou/石井 周一郎 <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] target-arm: delete ARM_FEATURE_A64FX > > > Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> writes: > > > The ARM_FEATURE_A64FX property was added, but there is no function > > that uses this property yet, so it will be removed until a function > > that uses it is added. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > > --- > > target/arm/cpu.h | 1 - > > target/arm/cpu64.c | 1 - > > 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h index > > 1b0c7b91ec..9f0a5f84d5 100644 > > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h > > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h > > @@ -2145,7 +2145,6 @@ enum arm_features { > > ARM_FEATURE_M_SECURITY, /* M profile Security Extension */ > > ARM_FEATURE_M_MAIN, /* M profile Main Extension */ > > ARM_FEATURE_V8_1M, /* M profile extras only in v8.1M and later */ > > - ARM_FEATURE_A64FX, /* Fujitsu A64FX processor HPC extensions > > support */ > > This is confusing because I can't see this feature flag in the mainline branch. Have > you inadvertently based this series from an internal branch? > > > }; > > > > static inline int arm_feature(CPUARMState *env, int feature) diff > > --git a/target/arm/cpu64.c b/target/arm/cpu64.c index > > a15f9c0c55..dd72300e88 100644 > > --- a/target/arm/cpu64.c > > +++ b/target/arm/cpu64.c > > @@ -856,7 +856,6 @@ static void aarch64_a64fx_initfn(Object *obj) > > ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj); > > > > cpu->dtb_compatible = "arm,a64fx"; > > - set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_A64FX); > > set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_V8); > > set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_NEON); > > set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_GENERIC_TIMER); > > > -- > Alex Bennée
diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h index 1b0c7b91ec..9f0a5f84d5 100644 --- a/target/arm/cpu.h +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h @@ -2145,7 +2145,6 @@ enum arm_features { ARM_FEATURE_M_SECURITY, /* M profile Security Extension */ ARM_FEATURE_M_MAIN, /* M profile Main Extension */ ARM_FEATURE_V8_1M, /* M profile extras only in v8.1M and later */ - ARM_FEATURE_A64FX, /* Fujitsu A64FX processor HPC extensions support */ }; static inline int arm_feature(CPUARMState *env, int feature) diff --git a/target/arm/cpu64.c b/target/arm/cpu64.c index a15f9c0c55..dd72300e88 100644 --- a/target/arm/cpu64.c +++ b/target/arm/cpu64.c @@ -856,7 +856,6 @@ static void aarch64_a64fx_initfn(Object *obj) ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj); cpu->dtb_compatible = "arm,a64fx"; - set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_A64FX); set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_V8); set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_NEON); set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_GENERIC_TIMER);
The ARM_FEATURE_A64FX property was added, but there is no function that uses this property yet, so it will be removed until a function that uses it is added. Signed-off-by: Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> --- target/arm/cpu.h | 1 - target/arm/cpu64.c | 1 - 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)