RE: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms

-----Original Message-----
From: glikely@secretlab.ca [mailto:glikely@secretlab.ca] On Behalf Of Gra=

nt 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@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
=20
On Friday, July 8, 2011, Tabi Timur-B04825 [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248
[off-list ref] wrote:

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 P=

2020, P1022,etc

quoted

quoted

=A0 "corenet-32-ds" - for a virtual machine similar to the 32-bit P408=

0

quoted

quoted

=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

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? =A0I don't see the connection.

Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the
compatible string somewhere?

=20
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=20
ePAPR 1.1) describes hypervisor specific info.

Stuart