On Tue Nov 21, 2023 at 5:29 PM AEST, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 11/21/23 02:33, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > On Tue Nov 21, 2023 at 9:51 AM AEST, Glenn Miles wrote: > >> Create a new powernv machine type, powernv10-rainier, that > >> will contain rainier-specific devices. > > > > Is the plan to have a base powernv10 common to all and then > > powernv10-rainier looks like a Rainier? Or would powernv10 > > just be a rainier? > > > > It's fine to structure code this way, I'm just wondering about > > the machine types available to user. Is a base powernv10 machine > > useful to run? > > There are multiple P10 boards defined in Linux : > > aspeed-bmc-ibm-bonnell.dts > aspeed-bmc-ibm-everest.dts > aspeed-bmc-ibm-rainier-1s4u.dts > aspeed-bmc-ibm-rainier-4u.dts > aspeed-bmc-ibm-rainier.dts > > and we could model the machines above with a fixed number of sockets. > The "powernv10" would be the generic system that can be customized > at will on the command line, even I2C devices.
If a bare qemu machine could be useful, I don't have a problem with it. I'm more thinking of what an average OPAL/PowerNV Linux user developer would want, they (I) would probably want to use powernv, powernv9, or powernv10, and just get a reasonable "realistic" machine. The bare system could be powernv10-generic or powernv10-minimal for those who know what they're doing. > There is also the > P10 Denali which is FSP based. This QEMU machine would certainly be > very different. I thought of doing the same for P9 with a -zaius > and include NPU2 models for it. I lacked time and the interest was > small at the time of OpenPOWER. > > Anyhow, adding a new machine makes sense and it prepares ground for > possible new ones. I am OK with or without. As primary users, you are > the ones that can tell if there will be a second machine. Yeah we will want to add other machines at some point, I think this does make sense, my only real concern is what we call them. Thanks, Nick