Scott Wood wrote: > The device tree is supposed to describe the hardware (virtual or > otherwise), not just supply what Linux wants. Perhaps there simply > shouldn't be a toplevel compatible if there's nothing appropriate to > describe there -- and fix whatever issues Linux has with that.
That might be the way to go. I wonder if we can get rid of the platform file altogether, at least in some situations. > But what about this is specific to kvm (the actual hypervisor info is > already described in /hypervisor)? Then we'll have to add a platform match > for every other hypervisor out there that does the same thing. I don't know enough about KVM to answer that question. Frankly, I like the approach that Topaz takes -- add a "-hv" to the real hardware platform. The only drawback is that each platform needs to add support for virtualization, but we already have this problem with Topaz today. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
