RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
B08248 at freescale.com
Tue Jul 12 00:36:36 EST 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: glikely at secretlab.ca [mailto:glikely at secretlab.ca] On Behalf Of Grant Likely
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:42 PM
> To: Tabi Timur-B04825
> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; Grant Likely; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Gala Kumar-B11780; Wood Scott-
> B07421; Alexander Graf; linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
> On Friday, July 8, 2011, Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825 at freescale.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248
> > <B08248 at freescale.com> wrote:
> >> "MPC85xxDS" - for a virtual machine for the e500v2 type platforms
> >> and would support 85xx targets, plus P2020, P1022,etc
> >> "corenet-32-ds" - for a virtual machine similar to the 32-bit P4080
> >> platforms
> >> "corenet-64-ds" - for a virtual machine based on a 64-bit corenet
> >> platform
> > I think we should drop the "DS" because that's a name applied to
> > certain Freescale reference boards.
> > Is being a CoreNet board really something meaningful with respect to
> > KVM? I don't see the connection.
> > Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the
> > compatible string somewhere?
> I would say so. That would accurately describe the execution environment.
As I mentioned to Timur, there is nothing KVM specific about
the execution environment. The /hypervisor node (as per
ePAPR 1.1) describes hypervisor specific info.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev