On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 11:29, Kashyap Chamarthy <kcham...@redhat.com> wrote: > > (Cc: Richard Henderson; context: "SME" and "RME" feature discussion > below.) > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 06:43:01PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote: > > The resulting header layout seems weird to me. > > Initially we had at top level (assuming ===): > > > > KVM vCPU Features > > TCG vCPU Features > > SVE CPU Properties > > SME CPU Properties > > RME CPU Properties > > > > and now > > > > TCG vCPU Features has somehow disappeared giving the impression that > > there are none.
> > Maybe we shall > > - rename KVM vCPU Features -> KVM only vCPU Features > > - Add a TCG only vCPU features including both SME and RME ones > > - introduce a top level KVM and TCG vCPU features with below: > > PAUTH, SVE, detailing potential different semantic for both KVM and TCG mode > > Yeah, it can be done. Would you be okay if I do it as a follow-up? As > this a re-work of the entire doc with several features. I think personally I would favour not having the split of "KVM only", "TCG only", etc sections. Instead document all of the properties in the same format, and have each property say whether it is TCG-specific, KVM-specific, etc. Some of these properties may at some point in the future change, after all -- SME is currently TCG only but may get support in KVM and HVF in future; "aarch64" is currently KVM only but we might some day support it in TCG. thanks -- PMM
