On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 18:59 +0200, Blue Swirl wrote: > > Actually I don't quite understand the need for vty layer, why not use > the chardev here directly?
I'm not sure what you mean here... Basically, the interface presented to guests is sPAPR compliant, so virtual devices come with a bunch of stuff such as standard device-tree properties, but also hcalls for interrupt control etc... which are common to most of these guys including vty. Some of it isn't present in David current patch just yet, but I don't see how using an existing chardev would provide the same semantics, especially when we start adding interrupts etc... Also eventually, VTY's will be hot-pluggable (when we get to do that) and will use the same mechanisms as the other sPAPR VIO devices for that. Cheers, Ben.
