On 20/03/2024 11:17, Landge, Sudan wrote:
>
> On 19/03/2024 15:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
Why did you remove all the people from CC list?
>>
>> On 19/03/2024 15:32, Sudan Landge wrote:
>>> Virtual Machine Generation ID driver was introduced in commit af6b54e2b5ba
>>> ("virt: vmgenid: notify RNG of VM fork and supply generation ID"), as an
>>> ACPI only device.
>> That's not a valid rationale. Second today... we do not add things to
>> bindings just because someone added some crazy or not crazy idea to Linux.
>>
>> Bindings represent the hardware.
>>
>> Please come with real rationale. Even if this is accepted, above reason
>> is just wrong and will be used as an excuse to promote more crap into
>> bindings.
>
> Thank you for the quick review.
>
> I will add more details to the problem we are trying to fix with an
> updated cover letter
>
> but to summarize the problem briefly:
>
> Firecracker is a minimalist feature hypervisor and we do not have ACPI
> support
>
> for ARM yet. The vmgenid devicetree support looked a better option because
>
> supporting ACPI on ARM means supporting UEFI which adds a lot of complexity.
That does not convince me. Amount of work for you is not making virtual
stuff real hardware. Come with some other discoverable protocol - you
have full control of both sides of this thing.
>
>> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The
>> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
>> See also:
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18
>>
>> Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. You can get them for
>> example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
>> your patch is touching.
> Got it, thanks.
>>> Add a devicetree binding support for vmgenid so that hypervisors
>>> can support vmgenid without the need to support ACPI.
>> Devicetree is not for virtual platforms. Virtual platform can define
>> whatever interface they want (virtio, ACPI, "VTree" (just invented now)).
> Sorry for my lack of experience in this area. I took reference of virtio
> devices when I
>
> uploaded the patch. We would still like to support vmgenid via a
> devicetree so I'll
>
> revert with a new approach.
There are other solutions, I think. This was discussed already multiple
times.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudan Landge<sudanl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/vmgenid/vmgenid.yaml | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
>> No, you do not get your own hardware subsystem. Use existing ones.
>
> Got it. The changes are related to the "rng" subsystem so I'll rethink
> if that is the
>
> right place for this and revert.
Your wrapping is odd. Please use some decent email client.
Anyway, I am not discussing topics semi-private. Keep all maintainers in
loop.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
