On Thu, 20 Nov 2025, Eric Auger wrote:
On 11/13/25 1:05 PM, Sebastian Ott wrote:
Hi Philippe,
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 12/11/25 19:13, Sebastian Ott wrote:
Provide a kvm specific vcpu property to override the default
(as of kernel v6.13 that would be PSCI v1.3) PSCI version emulated
by kvm. Current valid values are: 0.1, 0.2, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3
Note: in order to support PSCI v0.1 we need to drop vcpu
initialization with KVM_CAP_ARM_PSCI_0_2 in that case.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ott <[email protected]>
---
docs/system/arm/cpu-features.rst | 5 +++
target/arm/cpu.h | 6 +++
target/arm/kvm.c | 64
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target/arm/kvm.c b/target/arm/kvm.c
index 0d57081e69..e91b1abfb8 100644
--- a/target/arm/kvm.c
+++ b/target/arm/kvm.c
@@ -484,6 +484,49 @@ static void kvm_steal_time_set(Object *obj, bool
value, Error **errp)
ARM_CPU(obj)->kvm_steal_time = value ? ON_OFF_AUTO_ON :
ON_OFF_AUTO_OFF;
}
+struct psci_version {
+ uint32_t number;
+ const char *str;
+};
+
+static const struct psci_version psci_versions[] = {
+ { QEMU_PSCI_VERSION_0_1, "0.1" },
+ { QEMU_PSCI_VERSION_0_2, "0.2" },
+ { QEMU_PSCI_VERSION_1_0, "1.0" },
+ { QEMU_PSCI_VERSION_1_1, "1.1" },
+ { QEMU_PSCI_VERSION_1_2, "1.2" },
+ { QEMU_PSCI_VERSION_1_3, "1.3" },
+ { -1, NULL },
+};
@@ -505,6 +548,12 @@ void kvm_arm_add_vcpu_properties(ARMCPU *cpu)
kvm_steal_time_set);
object_property_set_description(obj, "kvm-steal-time",
"Set off to disable KVM steal
time.");
+
+ object_property_add_str(obj, "kvm-psci-version",
kvm_get_psci_version,
+ kvm_set_psci_version);
+ object_property_set_description(obj, "kvm-psci-version",
+ "Set PSCI version. "
+ "Valid values are 0.1, 0.2,
1.0, 1.1,
1.2, 1.3");
Could we enumerate from psci_versions[] here?
Hm, we'd need to concatenate these. Either manually:
"Valid values are " psci_versions[0].str ", " psci_versions[1].str ",
" ... which is not pretty and still needs to be touched for a new
version.
Or by a helper function that puts these in a new array and uses smth like
g_strjoinv(", ", array);
But that's quite a bit of extra code that needs to be maintained without
much gain.
Or we shy away from the issue and rephrase that to:
"Valid values include 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3"
Personally I would vote for keeping it as is
OK, thanks!
(by the way why did you
moit 0.1 and 0.2 above?)
Just to clarify that this is an incomplete list of possible values
that we don't have to change when a new psci version is introduced.
Sebastian
