Hi Marc, Peter, On 03/14/2013 04:57 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 13 March 2013 20:34, Christopher Covington <cov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> My guess at the goal of the code cited above in this email is that it's trying >> to sanity check that virtualization will work. Rather than taking a default >> deny approach with a hand-maintained white list of virtualization-supporting >> machine identifiers, why not check that EL2 is implemented on the current >> system and if it's not implied by that, that the timer and interrupt >> controller are suitable as well? [...] > ...you need to implement emulation code for the imp-def registers for a > guest CPU. [...] This is reasonable. In this light the code I was picking out above is simply converting MIDRs to KVM_ARM_TARGET_* constants. Because the mapping isn't one-to-one, the hand-maintained list is an acceptable approach. In the long term, I wonder if some kind of KVM_TARGET_CURRENT_CPU might be handy. Thanks, Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
