[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 13/17] x86/xen: enable Hygon support to Xen
- To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx, bp@xxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, JBeulich@xxxxxxxx
- From: Pu Wen <puwen@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 21:29:13 +0800
- Cc: linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:29:31 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 2018/8/12 21:26, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 08/12/2018 04:55 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11/08/18 16:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 08/11/2018 09:29 AM, Pu Wen wrote:
bool pmu_msr_read(unsigned int msr, uint64_t *val, int *err)
{
- if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) {
+ if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD ||
+ boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON) {
'if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)' please.
Really? Xen supports Centaur, too.
VPMU doesn't --- hypervisor will not initialize it. Besides, the
existing code will steer non-AMD execution to Intel, which is not right
either.
I'll add a check to bail if VPMU is not initialized properly, we seem to
ignore xen_pmu_init() failures. Which, BTW, makes this patch rather
pointless until there is support for Hygon Xen.
So should it still need to test vendor Hygon here or wait for your check
done?
Thanks,
Pu Wen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
