Hi,
On 2/18/25 12:34 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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. This other alternative looks totally fine to me as well. > > 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. agreed Eric > > thanks > -- PMM >
