On 25 July 2018 at 17:18, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 05:05:06PM +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote: >> On 25 July 2018 at 16:48, 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". >> > >> Thanks for your comments. >> Frankly, I myself prefer to 'sbsa' too, in fact, at the early stage of >> developing, we called this 'enterprise', but later I changed it to >> 'sbsa' until I sent out v1 patch. >> >> The work Arm TF and EDK2 porting to this platform needs this name to >> be defined finally. > > Why should EDK2 care what the QEMU machine type name is. The machine type > name is purely a QEMU internal tag and shouldn't be visible in the guest > ABI at all IIUC. > For example, in EDK2, ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemuSBSA.dsc and ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemuSBSA.fdf are created for porting to the new platform, similar situation for Arm TF, so the name is needed.
> > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|