Hello Nick,

On 3/7/22 07:55, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
The pvr_match for a CPU class is not supposed to just match for any
CPU in the family, but rather whether this particular CPU class is the
best match in the family.

Prior to this fix, e.g., a POWER9 DD2.3 KVM host matches to the
power9_v1.0 class (because that's first in the list). After the patch,
it matches the power9_v2.0 class.

Fixes: 03ae4133ab8 ("target-ppc: Add pvr_match() callback")
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com>> ---
  target/ppc/cpu_init.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
make check-qtest-ppc64 fails with :

―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ✀  
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
stderr:
qemu-system-ppc64: invalid CPU model 'power8nvl_v1.0-powerpc64-cpu' for 
powernv8 machine
Broken pipe


TAP parsing error: Too few tests run (expected 6, got 1)
(test program exited with status code -6)
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

# QTEST_QEMU_BINARY=build/ppc64-softmmu/qemu-system-ppc64 
QTEST_QEMU_IMG=qemu-img build/tests/qtest/pnv-xscom-test
1..6
# Start of ppc64 tests
# Start of pnv-xscom tests
# Start of cfam_id tests
# starting QEMU: exec build/ppc64-softmmu/qemu-system-ppc64 -qtest 
unix:/tmp/qtest-2994797.sock -qtest-log /dev/null -chardev 
socket,path=/tmp/qtest-2994797.qmp,id=char0 -mon chardev=char0,mode=control 
-display none -M powernv8 -accel tcg -cpu POWER8 -accel qtest
ok 1 /ppc64/pnv-xscom/cfam_id/POWER8
# starting QEMU: exec build/ppc64-softmmu/qemu-system-ppc64 -qtest 
unix:/tmp/qtest-2994797.sock -qtest-log /dev/null -chardev 
socket,path=/tmp/qtest-2994797.qmp,id=char0 -mon chardev=char0,mode=control 
-display none -M powernv8 -accel tcg -cpu POWER8NVL -accel qtest
qemu-system-ppc64: invalid CPU model 'power8nvl_v1.0-powerpc64-cpu' for 
powernv8 machine
Broken pipe
Aborted (core dumped)


Thanks,

C.

Reply via email to