On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:00:44 +0100, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 27 February 2014 12:31:55 Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > > > no FDT. In this case, the VM implementation must provide ACPI, and > > > > > the OS must be able to locate the ACPI root pointer through the UEFI > > > > > system table. > > > > > > > > > > For more information about the arm and arm64 boot conventions, see > > > > > Documentation/arm/Booting and Documentation/arm64/booting.txt in the > > > > > Linux kernel source tree. > > > > > > > > > > For more information about UEFI and ACPI booting, see [4] and [5]. > > > > > > > > What's the point of having ACPI in a virtual machine? You wouldn't > > > > need to abstract any of the hardware in AML since you already know > > > > what the virtual hardware is, so I can't see how this would help > > > > anyone. > > > > > > The point is that if we need to share any real hw then we need to use > > > whatever the host has. > > I would be more comfortable defining in the spec that you cannot share > hardware at all. Obviously that doesn't stop anyone from actually > sharing hardware with the guest, but at that point it would become > noncompliant with this spec, with the consequence that you couldn't > expect a compliant guest image to run on that hardware, but that is > exactly something we can't guarantee anyway because we don't know > what drivers might be needed. I don't think this spec should say *anything* about sharing hardware. This spec is about producing portable disk images. Assigning hardware into guests is rather orthogonal to whether or not hardware is assigned. g. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm