RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
timur at freescale.com
Tue Jul 12 03:54:23 EST 2011
Scott Wood wrote:
> The device tree is supposed to describe the hardware (virtual or
> otherwise), not just supply what Linux wants. Perhaps there simply
> shouldn't be a toplevel compatible if there's nothing appropriate to
> describe there -- and fix whatever issues Linux has with that.
That might be the way to go. I wonder if we can get rid of the platform file
altogether, at least in some situations.
> But what about this is specific to kvm (the actual hypervisor info is
> already described in /hypervisor)? Then we'll have to add a platform match
> for every other hypervisor out there that does the same thing.
I don't know enough about KVM to answer that question.
Frankly, I like the approach that Topaz takes -- add a "-hv" to the real
hardware platform. The only drawback is that each platform needs to add support
for virtualization, but we already have this problem with Topaz today.
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
More information about the Linuxppc-dev