From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 20:56:38 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] arm: document "mach-virt" platform.
In-Reply-To: <52EA83D6.9050506@codeaurora.org>
References: <1391098262-15944-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com>
 <52EA83D6.9050506@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <20140203045638.GB4167@cbox>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:54:46AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On 01/30/2014 11:11 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > mach-virt has existed for a while but it is not written down what it actually
> > consists of. Although it seems a bit unusual to document a binding for an
> > entire platform since mach-virt is entirely virtual it is helpful to have
> > something to refer to in the absence of a single concrete implementation.
> > 
> > I've done my best to capture the requirements based on the git log and my
> > memory/understanding.
> > 
> > While here remove the xenvm dts example, the Xen tools will now build a
> > suitable mach-virt compatible dts when launching the guest.
> 

[...]

> > +The platform may also provide hypervisor specific functionality
> > +(e.g. PV I/O), if it does so then this functionality must be
> > +discoverable (directly or indirectly) via device tree.
> 
> I think it would be informative to provide pointers here to commonly used
> paravirtualized devices, especially VirtIO PCI/MMIO.
> 

I disagree: that would only encourage limited testing or assumptions
about these specific devices when really this platform is just a
bare-bones platform driven by device tree which should make no
preference, whatsoever, about which devices are used with the platform.

-Christoffer