From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: document "mach-virt" platform. Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 20:54:02 -0800 Message-ID: <20140203045402.GA4167@cbox> References: <1391098262-15944-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1391098262-15944-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , Stefano Stabellini , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , Rob Herring , Arnd Bergmann , Kumar Gala , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 04:11:02PM +0000, 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. [...] > > + > +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. While this is obviously true, I'm not sure I see the value of this text. Isn't it more essential to just say that *any* functionality provided to the platform must be discoverable via device tree? -Christoffer