On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 03:58:15PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 7 January 2016 at 15:53, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:25:35PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
We had previously been relying on the kernel not attempting to
touch the PMU if the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer bits read 0000
("Performance Monitors extension System registers not implemented").
Ok, thanks for looking into this. I wonder why reading pmcr_el0 does
not suffer from the same problem though.
Just a pragmatic thing on QEMU's end, I expect -- the kernel already
touched PMCR_EL0 and we wanted to be able to boot it, so we have an
implementation of it.
If that's the case, that was the wrong approach IMHO. QEMU has to comply
with the Aarch64 architecture which means that either the CPU it models
has a Performance Monitors extension or it does not. If reading pmcr_el0
does not fault I could tell you this is a QEMU regression because currently
it _does_ model pmcr_el0 while (hopefully) ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer reports
it should not.
I will add code that guards both register accesses to fix both bugs at
once.