[...] > >>> > >>> Actually, I don't see X-Gene cores changing in-terms of register > >>> interface > >>> available to EL1 and EL0 in near future. This is the reason why I > >>> had named > >>> the target as KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V8. > >> > >> So where does the v8 come from? Is there any non-ARMv8 XGene? If > >> not, this is v1 really, right? What if we just call it v1 instead? > >> Then when a new core comes up that needs different treatment, we > >> create a new target. > >> > >> But this really is Marc's call. > > > > I like Alex's suggestion. > > > > How about having KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V1 now and > > KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V2 in future ? > > How will we know for sure which CPU implements which version of the > micro-architecture? > Does the V1, V2, ... nomenclature relate to anything in real life? Ideally you'd want a name that refers to some TRM that we can find and look at. Otherwise you end up having to document somewhere that the XGENE_V1 corresponds to some set of TRMs, and/or has specific features, which doesn't sound great to me. As long as it's all implemented by a generic backend I would prefer we were as concrete as possible, and if there is going to be 10 specific xgene SoC's then we have 10 case lines in the C-code - doesn't sounds like a big issue to me. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
