On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:45:47 -0500 Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com> wrote:
> >> Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the > >> compatible string > >> somewhere? > > > > There is nothing KVM specific about these platforms. Any hypervisor > > could create a similar virtual machine. > > True, but I think we're on a slippery slope, here. Virtualization allows us > to > create "virtual platforms" that are not well defined. Linux requires a unique > compatible string for each platform. The device tree is supposed to describe the hardware (virtual or otherwise), not just supply what Linux wants. Perhaps there simply shouldn't be a toplevel compatible if there's nothing appropriate to describe there -- and fix whatever issues Linux has with that. > I guess my point is back to the name "corenet". That just doesn't mean > anything > to me, and I don't think it means much to anyone else, either. That's why I > think that maybe "kvm" should be in the string, to at least indicate that > it's a > virtualized environment. But what about this is specific to kvm (the actual hypervisor info is already described in /hypervisor)? Then we'll have to add a platform match for every other hypervisor out there that does the same thing. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
