On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:34:38AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 11:29, Kashyap Chamarthy <kcham...@redhat.com> wrote:
[...] > > > 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. I agree. As the PAuth case demonstrated, it only makes sense to entirely do away with KVM- and TCG-specific sections and use a consistent format througout. That way, no need to remember to update outdated sections. It's also consistent with the x86 docs[1], where we don't draw attention to KVM- or TCG-specific features. I can rework the doc and send a follow-up. (Eric: I assume you're also fine with Peter's suggestion above :)) [1] https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/i386/cpu.html -- /kashyap
