On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 03:03:40PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 25 July 2018 at 14:59, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:47:00PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >> Would iut make any sense to call the machine "refplatform" or "refboard" > >> to indicate it is a generic reference platform, not specifically following > >> any particular real impl, albeit influence by the sbsa spec. > >> > > > > That would indeed stop me from whining about a machine model with an > > 'sbsa' name not strictly implementing a minimal SBSA machine :-) > > > > I still don't get why only a minimal machine is worth considering, > given that a real-world minimal SBSA machine is not capable of doing > anything useful.
One definition of an SBSA machine can be quite different than another. If we only hard code the required [useless] base, but also provide a readconfig for the rest, then we get a useful machine without loss of flexibility. That flexibility comes at the cost of platform-bus code (since we need to add devices to the system bus) and a less concise command line. The platform-bus code may indeed be too expensive for this purpose, but we may need to see patches to be sure. I understand the desire to have a shorter command line, but this is QEMU :) Thanks, drew
