From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [RFC v2] ARM VM System Specification Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 18:10:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20140328184517.GA27219@cbox> <20140611065412.GA24286@lvm> <53981043.3010300@redhat.com> <9801429.iblEns5zC3@wuerfel> <53B18E03.4050902@jonmasters.org> <20140630204647.GA19743@cbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Christoffer Dall , Jon Masters , Arnd Bergmann , arm-mail-list , Paolo Bonzini , Ian Campbell , kvm-devel , Michael Casadevall , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" , Rob Herring , "cross-distro@lists.linaro.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Christopher Covington , Grant Likely , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" To: Stefano Stabellini Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]:47745 "EHLO mail-la0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758316AbaGARKk (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:10:40 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e16so6160779lan.16 for ; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:10:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. thanks -- PMM From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peter.maydell@linaro.org (Peter Maydell) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 18:10:19 +0100 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: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. thanks -- PMM