[OpenBIOS] [PATCH v2] arch/ppc/qemu: Clean up and add more cpu infos

[BALATON Zoltan]

On Fri, 9 May 2014, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2014, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Am 09.05.2014 um 01:46 schrieb BALATON Zoltan <balaton at eik.bme.hu>:
>>>> On Thu, 8 May 2014, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>> On 04/17/2014 07:25 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>>>>> Removed unused clock_frequency member from struct cpudef which is get 
>>>>> from
>>>>> FW_CFG and added bus-frequency property to complete the frequency
>>>>> properties. Also added tlb infos to cpudef (with values only for G4
>>>>> currently as I have no data for other CPUs).
>>>>> Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <balaton at eik.bme.hu>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2: Get bus-frequency from FW_CFG similarly to clock-frequency and
>>>>> tb-frequency (corresponding patch submitted to QEMU)
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Index: openbios-devel/arch/ppc/qemu/init.c
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- openbios-devel/arch/ppc/qemu/init.c    (revision 1286)
>>>>> +++ openbios-devel/arch/ppc/qemu/init.c    (working copy)
>>>>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
>>>>>      int icache_size, dcache_size;
>>>>>      int icache_sets, dcache_sets;
>>>>>      int icache_block_size, dcache_block_size;
>>>>> -    int clock_frequency;
>>>>> +    int tlb_sets, tlb_size;
>>>>>      void (*initfn)(const struct cpudef *cpu);
>>>>>  };
>>>>> @@ -269,6 +269,18 @@
>>>>>      push_str("i-cache-block-size");
>>>>>      fword("property");
>>>>> +    if(cpu->tlb_size) {
>>>>> +        PUSH(cpu->tlb_sets);
>>>>> +        fword("encode-int");
>>>>> +        push_str("tlb-sets");
>>>>> +        fword("property");
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        PUSH(cpu->tlb_size);
>>>>> +        fword("encode-int");
>>>>> +        push_str("tlb-size");
>>>>> +        fword("property");
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>>      PUSH(fw_cfg_read_i32(FW_CFG_PPC_TBFREQ));
>>>>>      fword("encode-int");
>>>>>      push_str("timebase-frequency");
>>>>> @@ -279,6 +291,11 @@
>>>>>      push_str("clock-frequency");
>>>>>      fword("property");
>>>>> +    PUSH(fw_cfg_read_i32(FW_CFG_PPC_BUSFREQ));
>>>>> +    fword("encode-int");
>>>>> +    push_str("bus-frequency");
>>>>> +    fword("property");
>>>>> +
>>>>>      push_str("running");
>>>>>      fword("encode-string");
>>>>>      push_str("state");
>>>>> @@ -391,7 +408,8 @@
>>>>>          .dcache_sets = 0x80,
>>>>>          .icache_block_size = 0x20,
>>>>>          .dcache_block_size = 0x20,
>>>>> -        .clock_frequency = 0x07de2900,
>>>>> +        .tlb_sets = 0x00,
>>>>> +        .tlb_size = 0x00,
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, I was too quick to comment here. The if()  check above means we won't 
>>>> add those properties for these CPUs then.
>>>> 
>>>> No need to add the fields in this case. C by default zero initializes 
>>>> unset fields.
>>> 
>>> Do you prefer if I remove them? I though having them there does not hurt 
>>> and shows they could be set.
>> 
>> Hrm, I don't have strong feelings either way :)
>
> So can this be applied as is or are there any modifications needed?

Who decides about this patch? (I'd like to clean my tree a little and get 
things that can be taken upstream merged, so I can see what changes need 
still more work.)

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan