On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 12:49, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 11/1/21 17:04, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 14:29, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 13:25, Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> The PL031 currently is not able to report guest RTC change to the QMP > >>> monitor as opposed to mc146818 or spapr RTCs. This patch adds the call > >>> to qapi_event_send_rtc_change() when the Load Register is written. The > >>> value which is reported corresponds to the difference between the guest > >>> reference time and the reference time kept in softmmu/rtc.c. > >>> > >>> For instance adding 20s to the guest RTC value will report 20. Adding > >>> an extra 20s to the guest RTC value will report 20 + 20 = 40. > >>> > >>> The inclusion of qapi/qapi-types-misc-target.h in hw/rtl/pl031.c > >>> require to compile the PL031 with specific_ss.add() to avoid > >>> ./qapi/qapi-types-misc-target.h:18:13: error: attempt to use poisoned > >>> "TARGET_<ARCH>". > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > >> > >> Thanks. This looks plausible to me (well, it would ;-)) but > >> I would appreciate review from Paolo or somebody else who > >> understands the rtc_change feature and handling. > > > > Ping? Review from somebody who understands rtc_change would > > still be nice... > > The change looks good to me (sorry I missed this v2). x86 also has some > logic in the migration post-load, that might end up sending the event. > However, that's best done separately after understanding and documenting > exactly what x86 is doing.
Thanks; I've applied this to target-arm.next for 6.2. -- PMM
