On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:16 +0000, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 04:21, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > diff --git a/linux-headers/asm-arm/kvm.h b/linux-headers/asm-arm/kvm.h
> > index ff88ca0..8caa83b 100644
> > --- a/linux-headers/asm-arm/kvm.h
> > +++ b/linux-headers/asm-arm/kvm.h
> > @@ -55,6 +59,7 @@ struct kvm_regs {
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__u32 c1_sys;
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__u32 c2_base0;
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__u32 c2_base1;
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? __u32 c2_control;
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__u32 c3_dacr;
> > ? ? ? ?} cp15;
>
> Which kernel tree is this in? I checked Christoffer's kvm-a15-patches
> branch and Marc's kvm-v3.3-rc1 and kvm-v6-v3.3-rc3 branches and none
> of those seem to have this extra field.
This is in Christoffer's kvm-a15-v6 branch.
> We may not have frozen the ABI here yet but I'm starting to think
> we need to be a bit more careful about coordinating updates to it
> between kernel trees: QEMU can't track more than one of them...
Yes, I wouldn't take this yet, it doesn't appear anywhere else. I had
to revert it to test Marc's tree, for example.
> (Or for this particular case just move to MANY_REGS for accessing
> the cp15 regs and then we can just ignore missing regs at runtime
> rather than having compile failures or breakage.)
Or we could complete the structure with all known cp15 registers, as I
think we suggested we would?
I'm happy to patch it like that, if there's agreement...
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
How could I marry someone with more hair than me? http://baldalex.org
