On Mon Jun 16, 2025 at 10:00 AM CEST, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 13/06/2025 16:13, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> Without picking CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE. >> >> In order to do that. Allow CONFIG_DOM0LESS_BOOT to enable a subset >> of the common/device-tree/ directory. > > x86 doesn't want dom0less-build.c,> as that's tightly integrated > still to the ARM way of building domains. > > I don't understand this argument. dom0less-build.c was moved to common > and it will soon be used by RISC-V. This raises the question what's so > special with x86?
That's 2 separate matters: 1. dom0less-build.c not being compiled in. 2. CONFIG_DOM0LESS_BOOT enabling use of DT code without CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE. (1) is a matter of not wanting to boil the ocean upfront. The way x86 and everyone else build domains is just different and duplicated in non-trivially consolidable ways. The goal here is to enable the domain builders in any arch to use the same backbone. I don't want to go the extra mile just yet to unify domain construction (though in time I will want to). (2) has to do with compiling OUT things I really cannot have around. Anything involving devices described in a DT must not exist on x86, because it has no concept of a "struct device". My intent is/was to repurpose CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE to mean "this hypervisor goes on a platform that gives a platform-describing DT". On x86 that's given by DSDT/SSDTs with ACPI. > > Note I don't particularly care if you don't want to use it on x86. > However, the argument provided is lacking some details... This will be > useful in the future if someone thinks about consolidating the two. I very definitely will want it all unified, but I'm working one elephant at a time. Cheers, Alejandro
