> -----Original Message----- > From: glik...@secretlab.ca [mailto:glik...@secretlab.ca] On Behalf Of Grant > Likely > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:42 PM > To: Tabi Timur-B04825 > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; 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 Friday, July 8, 2011, Tabi Timur-B04825 <b04...@freescale.com> wrote: > > 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. > > > > Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the > > compatible string somewhere? > > I would say so. That would accurately describe the execution environment.
As I mentioned to Timur, there is nothing KVM specific about the execution environment. The /hypervisor node (as per ePAPR 1.1) describes hypervisor specific info. Stuart _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
