Not really, but the user still has the option to build a kernel like that. The simplest thing would be to just add VFP as a dependency for KVM on arm altogether to avoid this. If this is acceptable, then indeed this is a non issue. Best regards -Antonios On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Michael Hope <michael.hope at linaro.org>wrote: > On 25 July 2012 20:34, Antonios Motakis > <a.motakis at virtualopensystems.com> wrote: > > Hm... So if VFPv3 is not enabled in the host, disable VFP in KVM as > well? We > > would have to require at least v3 from the host, otherwise we will have > to > > add extra emulation to lie to the guest about the number of registers to > the > > guest. Which would be a pity. But maybe depending on VFPv3 is not too > much > > to ask for... I'll go ahead and give this a shot then. > > Is this needed? The Cortex-A15 and A7 are VFPv4-D32 and, from what I > can tell, required to have the FPU. > > So you could build a kernel with no VFP support but there's no > hardware based reason to do so. > > -- Michael > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/attachments/20120725/5b8ac2ce/attachment.html
