On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:34:56AM +0100, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote: > On 19 April 2013 15:00, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19 April 2013 10:27, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:25:35AM +0100, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote: > >>> I am not against using 8250 emulation (as far as it solves printk > >>> issues for kernel booting logs), but my point is why not to add early > >>> read-write support for virtio console, which also can be useful in > >>> emulation less mach-virt environment also ? > >> > >> We can have both, but only one of those requires a change to the virtio > >> specification. > > > > I don't think avoiding writing a spec is necessarily a good reason > > for insisting on emulation of a lump of hardware 95% of whose > > capabilities you aren't going to use... > > True. > Also 8250 will require emulation of registers, and i am not sure about > if mach-virt will have any emulation of real hw ? The point of mach-virt is that it is completely parameterised. So, if you're not emulating an 8250, then don't tell the kernel that you have one! Similarly, if you *do* emulate it, then either create a device-tree node for it or pass the appropriate earlyprintk= string on the command line. As far as kvmtool is concerned, we'd probably have a new command-line option for arm64, allowing you to specify the early console device. Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
