From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:17:59 -0600 Message-ID: <20110210131759.0d6a2453@udp111988uds> References: <20110208155557.GM6198@x200.localdomain> <4D51B1C9.3080507@codemonkey.ws> <4D526D0D.9020507@codemonkey.ws> <4D52A86A.1030407@codemonkey.ws> <4D52F20A.7070009@codemonkey.ws> <4D539800.3070802@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Anthony Liguori , Blue Swirl , Chris Wright , Markus Armbruster , , To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from am1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com ([213.199.154.209]:1987 "EHLO AM1EHSOBE006.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751334Ab1BJTSS convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:18:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:16:15 +0000 Peter Maydell wrote: > On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori wr= ote: > > So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i3= 86: >=20 > > 2) get rid of the entire concept of machines. =C2=A0Creating a i440= fx is > > essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine. >=20 > Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386? > The concept of a machine model seems a pretty obvious one > for ARM boards, for instance, and I'm not sure we'd gain much > by having i386 be different to the other architectures... 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 d= on't think the hardware itself makes any substantial difference. Currently = we end up having everything pretend to be an mpc8544ds (with some differen= ces described by the guest device tree that the user feeds in), which is ug= ly. -Scott From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42670 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pnc1z-0007Kf-9V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:18:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pnc1x-0004tG-V3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:18:19 -0500 Received: from am1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com ([213.199.154.209]:1981 helo=AM1EHSOBE006.bigfish.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pnc1x-0004t8-No for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:18:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:17:59 -0600 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8 Message-ID: <20110210131759.0d6a2453@udp111988uds> In-Reply-To: References: <20110208155557.GM6198@x200.localdomain> <4D51B1C9.3080507@codemonkey.ws> <4D526D0D.9020507@codemonkey.ws> <4D52A86A.1030407@codemonkey.ws> <4D52F20A.7070009@codemonkey.ws> <4D539800.3070802@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Blue Swirl On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:16:15 +0000 Peter Maydell wrote: > On 10 February 2011 07:47, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > So very concretely, I'm suggesting we do the following to target-i386: >=20 > > 2) get rid of the entire concept of machines. =C2=A0Creating a i440fx is > > essentially equivalent to creating a bare machine. >=20 > Does that make any sense for anything other than target-i386? > The concept of a machine model seems a pretty obvious one > for ARM boards, for instance, and I'm not sure we'd gain much > by having i386 be different to the other architectures... 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. -Scott