arm64: KVM: remove misleading comment on pmu status
Comment about how PMU access is handled is not relavant since v4.6 where proper PMU support was added in. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
cabdc5c59a
commit
b63bebe235
|
@ -823,14 +823,6 @@ static bool access_pmuserenr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
|
|||
* Architected system registers.
|
||||
* Important: Must be sorted ascending by Op0, Op1, CRn, CRm, Op2
|
||||
*
|
||||
* We could trap ID_DFR0 and tell the guest we don't support performance
|
||||
* monitoring. Unfortunately the patch to make the kernel check ID_DFR0 was
|
||||
* NAKed, so it will read the PMCR anyway.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Therefore we tell the guest we have 0 counters. Unfortunately, we
|
||||
* must always support PMCCNTR (the cycle counter): we just RAZ/WI for
|
||||
* all PM registers, which doesn't crash the guest kernel at least.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Debug handling: We do trap most, if not all debug related system
|
||||
* registers. The implementation is good enough to ensure that a guest
|
||||
* can use these with minimal performance degradation. The drawback is
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue