On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 14:33, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 02:29:49PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 at 12:57, BALATON Zoltan <balaton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > >> > - Deprecate the 'raspi4b' machine name, renaming it as > > >> > 'raspi4b-1g' on 32-bit hosts, 'raspi4b-2g' otherwise. > > >> > - Add the 'raspi4b-4g' and 'raspi4b-8g' machines, with > > >> > respectively 4GB and 8GB of DRAM. > > >> > > >> IMHO (meaning you can ignore it, just my opinion) if the only difference > > >> is the memory size -machine raspi4b -memory 4g would be better user > > >> experience than having a lot of different machines. > > > > > > Yes, I think I agree. We have a way for users to specify > > > how much memory they want, and I think it makes more sense > > > to use that than to have lots of different machine types. > > > > I guess for the Pi we should validate the -memory supplied is on of the > > supported grid of devices rather than an arbitrary value? > > If the user wants to create a rpi4 with 6 GB RAM why should we stop > them ? It is their choice if they want to precisely replicate RAM > size from a physical model, or use something different when virtualized. The board revision code (reported to the guest via the emulated firmware interface) only supports reporting 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, 4GB or 8GB: https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/computers/raspberry-pi.html#new-style-revision-codes For Arm embedded boards we mostly tend to "restrict the user to what you can actually do", except for older boards where we tended not to write any kind of sanity checking on CPU type, memory size, etc. thanks -- PMM
