On 10 February 2011 19:17, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:16:15 +0000 > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> > So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386: >> >> > 2) get rid of the entire concept of machines. Creating a i440fx is >> > essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine. >> >> Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386?
> It makes a lot of sense for us on powerpc. Maybe it has to do with a > longer tradition of using device trees versus opaque machine IDs -- I don't > think the hardware itself makes any substantial difference. Currently we > end up having everything pretend to be an mpc8544ds (with some differences > described by the guest device tree that the user feeds in), which is ugly. Hmm. Device tree is coming to ARM, but just at the moment it's generally one-kernel-one-machine still. (We've only just gained the ability to compile one kernel for both UP and SMP...) I kind of think you're still defining a "machine", you're just doing it in your device tree blob rather than in C. -- PMM
