On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tabi Timur-B04825 >> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:39 PM >> To: Yoder Stuart-B08248 >> Cc: Grant Likely; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Gala Kumar-B11780; Wood >> Scott-B07421; Alexander >> Graf; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > "MPC85xxDS" - for a virtual machine for the e500v2 type platforms >> > and would support 85xx targets, plus P2020, P1022,etc >> > >> > "corenet-32-ds" - for a virtual machine similar to the 32-bit P4080 >> > platforms >> > >> > "corenet-64-ds" - for a virtual machine based on a 64-bit corenet >> > platform >> >> I think we should drop the "DS" because that's a name applied to certain >> Freescale reference >> boards. >> >> Is being a CoreNet board really something meaningful with respect to KVM? I >> don't see the >> connection. > > We're talking about what would be meaningful to Linux as a guest on > this platform here-- Corenet-based SoCs are similar > in various ways, like using msgsnd for IPIs, having external proxy > support, etc. > > A corenet platform created by a QEMU/KVM looks similar > to other corenet SoCs. So, I'm trying to find some generic > compatible string that describes this platform. > >> 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. > > A guest OS can determine specific info about the hypervisor it is > running on by looking at the /hypervisor node on the device > tree. > > We could put a generic -hv extension to indicate that this is > a virtual platform. > > "mpc85xx-hv" > "corenet-32-hv" > "corenet-64-hv"
However, compatible values are cheap and while theoretically any hypervisor could create a similar machine, the reality is probably subtle difference between the implementations. I'd rather see the compatible reflect the specific implementation. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
