> -----Original Message----- > From: Tabi Timur-B04825 > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:39 PM > To: Yoder Stuart-B08248 > Cc: Grant Likely; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Gala Kumar-B11780; Wood > Scott-B07421; Alexander > Graf; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org > Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 <b08...@freescale.com> > wrote: > > > "MPC85xxDS" - for a virtual machine for the e500v2 type platforms > > and would support 85xx targets, plus P2020, P1022,etc > > > > "corenet-32-ds" - for a virtual machine similar to the 32-bit P4080 > > platforms > > > > "corenet-64-ds" - for a virtual machine based on a 64-bit corenet > > platform > > I think we should drop the "DS" because that's a name applied to certain > Freescale reference > boards. > > Is being a CoreNet board really something meaningful with respect to KVM? I > don't see the > connection.
We're talking about what would be meaningful to Linux as a guest on this platform here-- Corenet-based SoCs are similar in various ways, like using msgsnd for IPIs, having external proxy support, etc. A corenet platform created by a QEMU/KVM looks similar to other corenet SoCs. So, I'm trying to find some generic compatible string that describes this platform. > Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the > compatible string > somewhere? There is nothing KVM specific about these platforms. Any hypervisor could create a similar virtual machine. A guest OS can determine specific info about the hypervisor it is running on by looking at the /hypervisor node on the device tree. We could put a generic -hv extension to indicate that this is a virtual platform. "mpc85xx-hv" "corenet-32-hv" "corenet-64-hv" Stuart _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
