RE: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms

-----Original Message-----
From: Tabi Timur-B04825
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:39 PM
To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
Cc: Grant Likely; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Gala Kumar-B11780; Wood Scott-B=

07421; Alexander

Graf; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
=20
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 <B08248@freescale.com=
wrote:
=20

quoted

=A0 "MPC85xxDS" - for a virtual machine for the e500v2 type platforms
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 and would support 85xx targets, plus P2=

020, P1022,etc

quoted

=A0 "corenet-32-ds" - for a virtual machine similar to the 32-bit P4080
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 platforms

=A0 "corenet-64-ds" - for a virtual machine based on a 64-bit corenet
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 platform

=20
I think we should drop the "DS" because that's a name applied to certain =

Freescale reference

boards.
=20
Is being a CoreNet board really something meaningful with respect to KVM?=

  I don't see the

connection.

We're talking about what would be meaningful to Linux as a guest on
this platform here--  Corenet-based SoCs are similar=20
in various ways, like using msgsnd for IPIs, having external proxy
support, etc.

A corenet platform created by a QEMU/KVM looks similar
to other corenet SoCs.   So, I'm trying to find some generic
compatible string that describes this platform.

Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the compa=

tible string

somewhere?

There is nothing KVM specific about these platforms.  Any hypervisor
could create a similar virtual machine.

A guest OS can determine specific info about the hypervisor it is
running on by looking at the /hypervisor node on the device
tree.

We could put a generic -hv extension to indicate that this is
a virtual platform.

 "mpc85xx-hv"
 "corenet-32-hv"
 "corenet-64-hv"

Stuart