At the time we started working on AArch64, we were not certain that our implementation would be published in near future. Now that this is cleared up we are more than happy to coordinate together. > On 28 June 2013 14:04, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> I had been looking into that tree myself, and apart from John's >> Linux'ish "ARM: " prefixes rather than our usual "target-arm: " (part of >> which you forgot to fix before sending a PULL), I am really opposed to >> copying A15MPCore_priv for A57. > I agree that just copying A15 is wrong (among other things, we > should be modelling the hardware, not just "this seems to make > KVM not barf"). That's one of the reasons I hadn't sent the patch > set out yet. > Initially we thought about this aspect too, but in order to get started, we made the choice to continue using the already available A15 part as is. Obviously this is an RFC patch series and we would like to have your opinion on how we can proceed from here, based on the working solution that we have now, although we may have some differences from the real hardware. >> Also I would really prefer to have the is_aarch64() helper operate on >> ARMCPU rather than CPUARMState. QOM cast removal is underway to make >> that more efficient. >> >> Is there a 32-bit aarch64 register in ARMv8 to be accessed by TCG? If >> not, the field should be in ARMCPU and a bool rather than uint32_t. > This also needs looking at, yes. > > -- PMM -- Hamayun _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
