On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:20:03AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 25 July 2018 at 11:17, Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zh...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 25 July 2018 at 17:13, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 25 July 2018 at 11:09, Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zh...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> On 25 July 2018 at 17:01, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 25 July 2018 at 10:48, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:30:52PM +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote: > >>>>>> For the Aarch64, there is one machine 'virt', it is primarily meant to > >>>>>> run on KVM and execute virtualization workloads, but we need an > >>>>>> environment as faithful as possible to physical hardware, for > >>>>>> supporting > >>>>>> firmware and OS development for pysical Aarch64 machines. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This patch introduces new machine type 'Enterprise' with main features: > >>>>> > >>>>> The 'enterprise' name is really awful - this is essentially a marketing > >>>>> term completely devoid of any useful meaning. > >>>>> > >>>>> You had previously called this "sbsa" which IIUC was related to a real > >>>>> world hardware specification that it was based on. IOW, I think this old > >>>>> name was preferrable to calling it "enterprise". > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I couldn't agree more. However, IIUC this change was made at the > >>>> request of one of the reviewers, although I wasn't part of the > >>>> discussion at that point, so I'm not sure who it was. > >>>> > >>>> Hongbo, could you please share a link to that discussion? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Ard. > >>>> > >>> > >>> V1 discussion here: > >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg545775.html > >>> > >> > >> So who asked for the sbsa -> enterprise change? > > > > Actually nobody, but it was argued that sbsa does not require ehci and > > ahci etc, then we should find a name fitting for this platform better. > > That doesn't make sense to me. The SBSA describes a minimal > configuration, it does not limit what peripherals may be attached to > the core system. >
Hi Ard, I think that a machine model named 'sbsa' should provide all SBSA required hardware, and nothing else, while providing a means to easily extend the machine beyond that in any way the user likes. The user can easily add devices with the command line and/or by using -readconfig to build a "typical" machine. Note, it should even be possible to add, e.g. an ACHI controller, to the memory map using the platform bus, if that's preferred over PCIe. Thanks, drew