On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 02:45:06PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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 I think it would be valid to report the revision code for the memory size that doesn't exceed what QEMU has configured. eg if configured with 6 GB, then report code for 4 GB. > 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. If we're going to strictly limit memory size that's accepted I wonder how we could information users/mgmt apps about what's permitted ? Expressing valid combinations of configs across different args gets pretty complicated quickly :-( With 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 :|
