From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 03:13:10 -0700 Subject: [RFC v2] ARM VM System Specification In-Reply-To: References: <20140328184517.GA27219@cbox> <20140611065412.GA24286@lvm> <53981043.3010300@redhat.com> <9801429.iblEns5zC3@wuerfel> <53B18E03.4050902@jonmasters.org> <20140630204647.GA19743@cbox> Message-ID: <20140702101310.GC20104@cbox> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:10:19PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 1 July 2014 18:03, Stefano Stabellini > wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> How about: > >> ===== > >> Guest OSes in the VM image should rely on the UEFI RTC API for > >> real time clock services. (To provide that API, the VM system will > >> likely need to implement some real time clock device, but the > >> details of these are a private implementation issue between it > >> and its associated UEFI implementation.) > > > > I don't see why we need to add the text within brackets: it is out of > > scope for this document. > > The intention is to be an informative note, not normative text > (I'm happy if we want to format the text to make that clearer, > with some sort of NOTE: markup). I'd like VM implementors > reading this spec to make the correct decisions even if they > don't happen to know inside-out the details of the UEFI > specification and what exactly UEFI demands of the hardware, > and I think it's worth adding the occasional clarifying sentence > even if it doesn't strictly speaking add any extra rules to the > specification. > That's also the approach we've taken so far elsewhere in the document, so I think it's useful. -Christoffer