On 6 March 2018 at 15:16, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue,  6 Mar 2018 12:55:24 +0000
> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> Now we have a working '-cpu max', the linux-user-only
>> 'any' CPU is pretty much the same thing, so implement it
>> that way.
>>
>> For the moment we don't add any of the extra feature bits
>> to the system-emulation "max", because we don't set the
>> ID register bits we would need to to advertise those
>> features as present.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  target/arm/cpu.c   | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>  target/arm/cpu64.c | 59 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c
>> index e46ddcc613..c8d3da2140 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/cpu.c
>> +++ b/target/arm/cpu.c
>> @@ -965,9 +965,17 @@ static ObjectClass *arm_cpu_class_by_name(const char 
>> *cpu_model)
>>      ObjectClass *oc;
>>      char *typename;
>>      char **cpuname;
>> +    const char *cpunamestr;
>>
>>      cpuname = g_strsplit(cpu_model, ",", 1);
>> -    typename = g_strdup_printf(ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("%s"), cpuname[0]);
>> +    cpunamestr = cpuname[0];
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>> +    /* For backwards compatibility usermode emulation allows "-cpu any",
>> +     * which has the same semantics as "-cpu max".
>> +     */
>> +    cpunamestr = "max";
> shouldn't it be
>  if (!strcmp(cpuname[0], "any")) {
>      cpunamestr = "max";
>  }

Yes. I shuffled the code around a bit and managed to lose the
comparison...


>> @@ -1789,7 +1791,7 @@ static const ARMCPUInfo arm_cpus[] = {
>>      { .name = "max",         .initfn = arm_max_initfn },
>>  #endif
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>> -    { .name = "any",         .initfn = arm_any_initfn },
>> +    { .name = "any",         .initfn = arm_max_initfn },
> Note,
>  'any' will disappear from "-cpu help"
> but that's probably fine, old users would still be able to use alias
> and new ones won't even suspect about its existence and use 'max'.

Yeah, I guess that's OK.

thanks
-- PMM

Reply via email to