Hi George,
On 13/11/17 15:41, George Dunlap wrote:
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>
---
Do we need to add anything more here?
And do we need to include ARM ACPI for guests?
I don't have any opinion here. However, if we decide to include, then we
should also include Device-Tree.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>
CC: Konrad Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>
CC: Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org>
CC: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
---
SUPPORT.md | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md
index b95ee0ebe7..8235336c41 100644
--- a/SUPPORT.md
+++ b/SUPPORT.md
@@ -412,6 +412,16 @@ Virtual Performance Management Unit for HVM guests
Disabled by default (enable with hypervisor command line option).
This feature is not security supported: see
http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-163.html
+### ARM/Non-PCI device passthrough
+
+ Status: Supported
+
+### ARM: 16K and 64K page granularity in guests
+
+ Status: Supported, with caveats
+
+No support for QEMU backends in a 16K or 64K domain.
+
## Virtual Hardware, QEMU
These are devices available in HVM mode using a qemu devicemodel (the default).
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel