On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:01:12 -0400 Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/23/2018 03:03 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:52:55 -0400 > > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> (Not providing a crycb if APXA is not available would be loss of > >>>>>>> functionality, I guess? Deciding not to provide vfio-ap if APXA is not > >>>>>>> available is a different game, of course.) > >>>>>> This would require a change to enabling the CPU model feature for > >>>>>> AP. > >>>>> But would it actually make sense to tie vfio-ap to APXA? This needs to > >>>>> be answered by folks with access to the architecture :) > >>>> I don't see any reason to do that from an architectural perspective. > >>>> One can access AP devices whether APXA is installed or not, it just limits > >>>> the range of devices that can be addressed > >>> So I guess we should not introduce a tie-in then (unless it radically > >>> simplifies the code...) > >> I'm not clear about what you mean by introducing a tie-in. Can you > >> clarify that? > > Making vfio-ap depend on APXA. > > I don't think vfio-ap should be dependent upon APXA for the reasons I > stated above. > > > > It seems we are in violent agreement :)
