On 14/06/2021 19.32, John Snow wrote:
[...]
RTH raises the issue of the "TCI" subsystem of TCG, which is not a full
accelerator in its own right, but (I think) a special case of TCG. If I keep
the 1:1 mapping to ACCEL_CLASS_NAME, "accel: TCI" is inappropriate.
Some suggestions:
- "TCI" by itself, simple enough.
- "TCG-TCI" or "TCG: TCI" or "TCG/TCI" or similar, so that it shows up in
label search when you search for 'tcg'.
- "accel: TCG:TCI". Similar to above but uses the "accel:" prefix too.
I wonder whether we need a label for TCI at all... I can't recall having
ever seen a bug ticket filed for TCI. It's quite a special use-case with
some few users only, so it's maybe not worth the effort to create a separate
label for this... just my 0.02 €.
We probably want to keep a set of labels that apply to the host
architecture. These are useful for build failures, environment setup issues,
or just documenting the exact environment on which an issue was observed.
We won't likely require the full set of targets to be duplicated for this
purpose: possibly just the most common ones. I assume those are:
arm, i386, ppc, s390x
How should we tag those? "host-arch: XXX"?
"host-arch" sounds fine to me. I think you can limit the selection here to
the list of TCG backends that we support:
arm, i386, mips, ppc, riscv, s390x, sparc
... and maybe tci here (i.e. "host-arch: tci")?
Thomas
