On 06.07.2012, at 18:52, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 11:30 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 06.07.2012, at 18:25, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/06/2012 07:29 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> I really think we should document what exactly this machine expects.
>>>
>>> Well, the point of this paravirt machine is to avoid such assumptions --
>>> it's all device-tree driven, at least in theory. If a certain qemu
>>> configuration ends up breaking the Linux platform (such as using a
>>> different PIC), then that's a lack of flexibility on Linux's part that
>>> should get fixed if someone finds it useful enough to justify the
>>> effort. Same with real hardware -- if you care about it, you add
>>> support -- we just don't have a unique name for every configuration.
>>> The information is there in the device tree, though.
>>>
>>> Honestly, even having "qemu" in there is more specific than I'd prefer,
>>> but I don't want to stir up the "generic platform" argument again
>>> without at least limiting the scope.
>>
>> Well, can't we note down the assumptions we make to make sure that
>> whoever develops an implementation of it knows what to implement?
>> It's ppc specific for example. I also don't think that plugging a G3
>> in there works, would it?
>
> Well, it does have "e500" in the name. :-P
>
>>>>> +void __init qemu_e500_pic_init(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct mpic *mpic;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mpic = mpic_alloc(NULL, 0, MPIC_BIG_ENDIAN | MPIC_SINGLE_DEST_CPU,
>>>>> + 0, 256, " OpenPIC ");
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean we're configuring the MPIC regardless of what the
>>>> guest tells us? So the MPIC is a hard requirement. We can't use UIC
>>>> or XPIC with this machine, right? This needs to be documented.
>>>
>>> Then what would we do if we want to add an ePAPR virtual PIC instead?
>>> Or if something replaces MPIC on future FSL chips?
>>
>> Then we need a different compatible anyways, because we wouldn't be
>> backwards compatible, no?
>
> No, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. This notion of a toplevel
> compatible that tells you everything you need to know about the machine
> (even if Linux chooses to be device-tree-based for some arbitrary subset
> of that information) is incompatible with a flexible virtual platform.
>
> All this compatible is saying is "see the rest of the device tree".
> How well Linux does so is a quality of implementation issue that can be
> addressed as needed. The information about what sort of interrupt
> controller you have is already in the device tree. The device tree is
> the machine spec.
>
> Another assumption this patch makes is that it doesn't need SWIOTLB. Is
> "has more than 4GiB RAM" a machine attribute that would warrant a
> separate toplevel compatible? SWIOTLB for PCI is handled due to the
> previous patch that provides common PCI code -- but in a previous
> version of the patch it was not handled. Is it yet another incompatible
> machine spec if RAM must be less than 4GiB minus PCICSRBAR (ignoring the
> QEMU bug that PCICSRBAR is not implemented)?
Well, the thing that I'm wary of is the following. Imagine we make this the
default machine type for all e500 user cases. Which is reasonable. Now we
release 3.6 which works awesome with QEMU 1.2. We change something in QEMU.
QEMU 1.3 comes out. It can no longer boot your old kernel 3.6.
That's the type of situation I don't want to be in. We need to be backwards
compatible with what we used to be able to run. We can get away with declaring
things as experimental for now, until we settled on a reasonable compromise to
achieve said compatibility. But it needs to be our goal somewhere.
One idea would be to version the machine type according to what Linux
implements. If Linux finds a machine type that is newer than what it
implements, it spawns a warning. If we want, we can implement backwards
compatible machine types in QEMU, similar to how we implement -M pc-0.12 and
friends today.
Again, no need to do so as long as we tell users to not use it. As soon as we
want them to actually run the machine, we need to have independent upgrade
paths in place. New QEMU needs to be able to run old kernels. New kernels need
to be run on old QEMU.
>
>>> Better to change the Linux implementation as needed than to change a spec.
>>
>> Why not keep the 2 in sync in the same patch? Just throw a file with a rough
>> outline of the machine in Documentation/.
>
> Because that would give people the wrong impression about what this
> machine is, and be unlikely to stay in sync or be a complete listing of
> current assumptions. You're basically suggesting to use Documentation/
> as a bug tracker.
I'm just saying that every time we hardcode assumptions, we need to make sure
we document it somewhere. And currently we do hardcode assumptions, even though
only a few.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
