Hi,
On 3/3/25 3:32 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 27/2/25 18:27, Alex Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:32:46 +0100 >> Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Cédric, >>> >>> On 2/26/25 9:47 AM, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >>>> VFIO Platforms was designed for Aarch64. Restrict availability to >>>> 64-bit host platforms. >>>> >>>> Cc: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@redhat.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com> > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> > >>> As an outcome from last KVM forum, next step may be to simply remove >>> VFIO_PLATFORM from the qemu tree. >>> >>> We also need to make a decision wrt linux vfio platform driver. As I >>> can't test it anymore without hacks (my last tegra234 mgbe works are >>> unlikely to land on qemu side and lack traction on kernel side too), >>> either someone who can test it volunteers to take over the kernel >>> maintainership or we remove it from kernel too. >> >> I think it's more than just a kernel maintainer stepping up to test, >> there really needs to be some in-kernel justification for the >> vfio-platform driver itself. If it's only enabling out of tree use >> cases and there's nothing in-tree that's actually independently >> worthwhile, I don't really see why we shouldn't remove it and just let >> those out of tree use cases provide their own out of tree versions of >> vfio-platform. Thanks, > > Now (1 week before freeze for release) is a good time to post a patch > deprecating it :) Yes I will do that tomorrow Eric
