Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8

Peter Maydell
2011-02-10T19:22:40Z

On 10 February 2011 19:17, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:16:15 +0000
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>> > So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386:
>>
>> > 2) get rid of the entire concept of machines.  Creating a i440fx is
>> > essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine.
>>
>> Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386?

> It makes a lot of sense for us on powerpc.  Maybe it has to do with a
> longer tradition of using device trees versus opaque machine IDs -- I don't
> think the hardware itself makes any substantial difference.  Currently we
> end up having everything pretend to be an mpc8544ds (with some differences
> described by the guest device tree that the user feeds in), which is ugly.

Hmm. Device tree is coming to ARM, but just at the moment it's
generally one-kernel-one-machine still. (We've only just gained the
ability to compile one kernel for both UP and SMP...)

I kind of think you're still defining a "machine", you're just doing it
in your device tree blob rather than in C.

-- PMM