On 6/15/21 10:56 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > 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")?
Great idea!
