On 09.04.2025 20:53, Denis Mukhin wrote: > On Tuesday, April 8th, 2025 at 9:07 AM, Alejandro Vallejo <agarc...@amd.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> From: "Daniel P. Smith" dpsm...@apertussolutions.com >> >> >> Introduce the domain builder which is capable of consuming a device tree as >> the >> first boot module. If it finds a device tree as the first boot module, it >> will >> set its type to BOOTMOD_FDT. This change only detects the boot module and >> continues to boot with slight change to the boot convention that the dom0 >> kernel is no longer first boot module but is the second. >> >> No functional change intended. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith dpsm...@apertussolutions.com >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk jason.andr...@amd.com >> >> --- >> v3: >> * Move obj-y += domain-builder/ >> * Remove blank line in Makefile >> * const in has_hyperlaunch_fdt() >> * CONFIG_LIBFDT rename >> * Use boot_info forward declaration >> * Rename domainbuilder.h to domain-builder.h >> * Add fdt NULL check >> --- >> xen/arch/x86/Makefile | 1 + >> xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig | 2 +- >> xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Makefile | 2 + >> xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/core.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/fdt.c | 37 +++++++++++++++ >> xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/fdt.h | 21 +++++++++ > > I have a general question. > > Wouldn't that make sense to use arch-independent placeholder for domain > builder > code right from the starting point? > > For example something like xen/common/domain-builder ? > > My understanding is that there's a lot of code in the domain builder which > can be potentially shared/re-used with non-x86 architectures.
And indeed this point was already raised before. Jan
