Hi Marc, Peter, On 03/14/2013 04:57 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 13 March 2013 20:34, Christopher Covington <c...@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> My guess at the goal of the code cited above in this email is that it's >> trying >> to sanity check that virtualization will work. Rather than taking a default >> deny approach with a hand-maintained white list of virtualization-supporting >> machine identifiers, why not check that EL2 is implemented on the current >> system and if it's not implied by that, that the timer and interrupt >> controller are suitable as well?
[...] > ...you need to implement emulation code for the imp-def registers for a > guest CPU. [...] This is reasonable. In this light the code I was picking out above is simply converting MIDRs to KVM_ARM_TARGET_* constants. Because the mapping isn't one-to-one, the hand-maintained list is an acceptable approach. In the long term, I wonder if some kind of KVM_TARGET_CURRENT_CPU might be handy. Thanks, Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
