Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390x/cpumodel: add 3931 and 3932

[Cornelia Huck]

On Wed, Jun 30 2021, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 30.06.21 15:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.06.21 22:19, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> This defines 5 new facilities and the new 3931 and 3932 machines.
>>> As before the name is not yet known and we do use gen16a and gen16b.
>>> The new features are part of the full model.
>>>
>>> The default model is still empty (same as z15) and will be added
>>> in a separate patch at a later point in time.
>>>
>>> Also add the dependencies of new facilities and as a fix for z15 add
>>> a dependency from S390_FEAT_VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH to
>>> S390_VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc |  5 +++++
>>>   target/s390x/cpu_models.c           |  6 ++++++
>>>   target/s390x/gen-features.c         | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>   3 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc 
>>> b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc
>>> index 7db3449e0434..c71caee74411 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h.inc
>>> @@ -109,6 +109,11 @@ DEF_FEAT(VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH, "vxpdeh", STFL, 
>>> 152, "Vector-Packed-Decimal-
>>>   DEF_FEAT(MSA_EXT_9, "msa9-base", STFL, 155, 
>>> "Message-security-assist-extension-9 facility (excluding subfunctions)")
>>>   DEF_FEAT(ETOKEN, "etoken", STFL, 156, "Etoken facility")
>>>   DEF_FEAT(UNPACK, "unpack", STFL, 161, "Unpack facility")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(NNPA, "nnpa", STFL, 165, "NNPA facility")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL_ENH2, "vxpdeh2", STFL, 192, 
>>> "Vector-Packed-Decimal-Enhancement facility 2")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(BEAR, "bear", STFL, 193, "BEAR-enhancement facility")
>> 
>> Usually we use "eh" for enhancement. Which would result in "beareh" or 
>> alternatively "beh". But maybe the "enhancement" part is not actually an 
>> enhancement, but instead this facility is more like the etoken or unpack 
>> facility ...
>
> There was no bear facility (I think it was part of PER3).
> beareh or beh would be fine with me.
>
>> 
>>> +DEF_FEAT(RDP, "rdp", STFL, 194, "Reset-DAT-protection facility")
>>> +DEF_FEAT(ACTIVITY, "activity", STFL, 196, 
>>> "Processor-Activity-Instrumentation facility")
>> 
>> Would "pai" be a more appropriate feature name?
>
> pai would be ok for me as well.
>
> Conny, do you want to replace "activity" with "pai" and "bear" with "beareh" 
> in your tree?

I can certainly edit this to a naming everyone agrees with (no strong
opinions from my side).

[Although I rather like large animals in cpu facilities 8)]