Il 18/12/2013 21:38, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: >> > >> > So I think we need to: >> > - Use the new range for PSCI v0.2 (while still supporting v0.1 and the >> > old range) >> > - Get the kernel and DT bindings into shape >> > - Merge all of that at the same time >> > > Don't we also need a way for user space to tell KVM if it should emulate > v0.1 or v0.2 of PSCI so we don't break backwards compatibility with > tools that spit out a device tree and use guest kernels based on v0.1? > > This could be a new feature for KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT, but perhaps it should > be something on the VM level, hmmm. You can use KVM_ENABLE_CAP. It is currently documented as a VCPU ioctl, but you can reuse it for VMs. However, it is best if you also add a new capability KVM_CAP_VM_ENABLE_CAP. Then rename the old KVM_CAP_ENABLE_CAP to KVM_CAP_VCPU_ENABLE_CAP, while leaving the old name for backwards compatibility. Paolo _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
