----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1754/#review4131 -----------------------------------------------------------
Looks good. Two things: - The limitations/issues should be in a comment in the code somewhere, not just in the commit message. - In the spirit of my earlier superficial naming comments: I think ArmKvmCPU is a better name. Generally classes derived from BaseKvmCPU should be named *KvmCPU (like how the derivatives of BaseSimpleCPU are AtomicSimpleCPU and TimingSimpleCPU). - Steve Reinhardt On March 9, 2013, 5:01 p.m., Ali Saidi wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1754/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 9, 2013, 5:01 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9626:9656a8def9f3 > --------------------------- > kvm: Add basic support for ARM > > Architecture specific limitations: > * LPAE is currently not supported by gem5. We therefore panic if LPAE > is enabled when returning to gem5. > * The co-processor based interface to the architected timer is > unsupported. We can't support this due to limitations in the KVM > API on ARM. > * M5 ops are currently not supported. This requires either a kernel > hack or a memory mapped device that handles the guest<->m5 > interface. > > > Diffs > ----- > > SConstruct e6347e559e8f > src/cpu/kvm/KvmArmCPU.py PRE-CREATION > src/cpu/kvm/SConscript PRE-CREATION > src/cpu/kvm/arm_cpu.hh PRE-CREATION > src/cpu/kvm/arm_cpu.cc PRE-CREATION > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1754/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Ali Saidi > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
