On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:17:00PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 13 November 2012 11:51, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > > Am 12.11.2012 23:33, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > >> In that case, "cpu-any" wouldn't work, either. What about > >> "<arch>-cpu-<model>"? > > > > Fine with me. However, keep in mind the previous approach was used for > > command line compatibility: I would like to continue using -cpu > > cortex-a9 rather than -cpu arm-cpu-cortex-a9. :) > > Yes, we need to maintain the command line names as-is.
ACK. > > > If we introduce a more complex command-line-to-class mapping, can't we > > drop these ominous "any" CPUs altogether? For my understanding they were > > used as wildcard CPUs for *-user. We could do the same by instantiating > > a real CPU like "cortex-a15" and possibly enabling some additional > > features afterwards. > > I don't see what that gains us. The easiest way to say "it's > a cpu with all the feature bits turned on" is to define it as > a cpu with all the feature bits turned on :-) This sounds similar to "-cpu host" on x86. The difference is that on x86 with KVM, we depend on host capabilities to know which features can be enabled (so on x86 it's not "a cpu with all the feature bits turned on", but "a cpu with all the feature bits _we can safely enable_ turned on"). > > -- PMM -- Eduardo
