On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:16:15 +0000 Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386: > > > 2) get rid of the entire concept of machines. ÂCreating a i440fx is > > essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine. > > Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386? > The concept of a machine model seems a pretty obvious one > for ARM boards, for instance, and I'm not sure we'd gain much > by having i386 be different to the other architectures... It makes a lot of sense for us on powerpc. Maybe it has to do with a longer tradition of using device trees versus opaque machine IDs -- I don't think the hardware itself makes any substantial difference. Currently we end up having everything pretend to be an mpc8544ds (with some differences described by the guest device tree that the user feeds in), which is ugly. -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
