On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 15:58, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 15:48, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Since these types of features seem to blur the line between being a CPU > > and board property, then I think I'd prefer we call them CPU properties, > > as they come from the CPU manual. > > Conversely, I prefer to call them board properties, because that's > the way it works in hardware: the hardware board has the necessary > support for the system-level feature, and part of that is that it > has an SoC or CPU which has been configured to have the properties > that are needed for the board to support the feature. Having a CPU > that nominally supports a feature is useless if the system as a whole > doesn't handle it.
...this also means that we're consistent between boards: some board models unconditionally have support for a feature (and always set it on the CPU, GIC, etc), some don't ever support the feature (and always disable it), and a few offer the user the choice. Having the user use CPU properties suggests that they can, for instance, plug a has-el3 CPU into any board model, which in general won't work. -- PMM
