On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:22:38 +0000 Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10 February 2011 19:17, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > > > It makes a lot of sense for us on powerpc. ÂMaybe 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. ÂCurrently 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. > > Hmm. Device tree is coming to ARM, but just at the moment it's > generally one-kernel-one-machine still. (We've only just gained the > ability to compile one kernel for both UP and SMP...) > > I kind of think you're still defining a "machine", you're just doing it > in your device tree blob rather than in C. Right, that's the point -- the definition is just a definition, it's not tied up with implementation. This reduces the amount of duplication in implementation (or inappropriate sharing, as in the "use mpc8544ds for all 85xx" case). -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
