linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: document "mach-virt" platform.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140203045638.GB4167@cbox>
Date:	Sun, 2 Feb 2014 20:56:38 -0800
From:	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
To:	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: document "mach-virt" platform.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:54:46AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On 01/30/2014 11:11 AM, 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.
> > 
> > While here remove the xenvm dts example, the Xen tools will now build a
> > suitable mach-virt compatible dts when launching the guest.
> 

[...]

> > +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.
> 
> I think it would be informative to provide pointers here to commonly used
> paravirtualized devices, especially VirtIO PCI/MMIO.
> 

I disagree: that would only encourage limited testing or assumptions
about these specific devices when really this platform is just a
bare-bones platform driven by device tree which should make no
preference, whatsoever, about which devices are used with the platform.

-Christoffer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/