> On Nov 13, 2023, at 7:26 PM, Elliott Mitchell <ehem+open...@m5p.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:48:14PM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 01:30:10PM +0100, Paul Spooren wrote:
>>>
>>> How about we follow the approach of Alpine Linux[1] and offer a standard,
>>> an extended and a virtual firmware for the x86/64 target?
>>>
>>> What packages specifically is another discussion but the approach could be
>>> that standard contains all kmods to get network working on all device,
>>> extended includes extra LED drivers etc and virtual only contains network
>>> drivers for, well, virtual things.
>>
>> +1
>> I like that much more than adding board-specific images on a platform
>> with standardized boot process (such as x86 or armsr).
>
> [...]
>
> The real issue is VMs are unlikely to see devices typically present on
> bare metal computers. Thermal capabilities? Nope. Processor frequency
> selection? Nope. Microcode reloading? Nope.
>
> Each hypervisor will have a small set of drivers guaranteed to be
> present. These though will be completely different between hypervisors.
With KVM and kmod-vfio-pci you can do reverse-pass thru where the host isn't
controlling the hardware but the guest is. I know some people who do this to
test WiFi drivers from KVM guests.
-Philip
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
