From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753995Ab2ITLVI (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:21:08 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:36504 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753840Ab2ITLVH (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:21:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:21:02 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: David Vrabel Cc: Stefano Stabellini , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Pawel Moll , konrad.wilk@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] arm: introduce a DTS for Xen unprivileged virtual machines Message-ID: <20120920112102.GD2117@linaro.org> References: <1348076658-4511-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <505AF3E5.1050306@citrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <505AF3E5.1050306@citrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:45:57AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > On 19/09/12 18:44, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-xenvm-4.2.dts > > Does this make sense? There is no fixed configuration for VMs. > > Is the intention to pass a DTS to the toolstack for it to create the VM > with the appropriate amount of memory and peripheral mapped to the right > place etc? Or is the toolstack going to create the VM and generate the > DTB from (e.g.,) an xl VM configuration file. > > > + > > + hypervisor { > > + compatible = "xen,xen-4.2", "xen,xen"; > > + reg = <0xb0000000 0x20000>; > > + interrupts = <1 15 0xf08>; > > + }; > > This node needs to be generated by the toolstack as only it knows what > ABI the hypervisor has. That's a good point: the same applies to the command line. The toolstack knows where the console and root device should be etc.: the kernel itself shouldn't have static defaults for those. Cheers ---Dave