On 7/29/21 4:22 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote: > On 7/29/21 1:34 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 7/29/21 12:44 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >>> On 7/29/21 12:29 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> And another comment: I think we should have some progress on ARM with >>>>> the kvm/tcg split and with the KConfig of boards, before we continue >>>>> here. >>>> >>>> Why? This can easily be tacked in parallel. We can flip the switch >>>> for modular tcg per target in meson.build. >>>> >>>> take care, >>>> Gerd >>>> >>> >>> Because in the end we need to do this for ARM too and for the other archs >>> too (s390 is already ok), >>> >>> and in order to be sure not to end up in a dead-end, I think it would be >>> good to have at least a sketch for the other archs as well.. >>> >>> Just my 2c ofc, I think really here still ARM is behind, and we should help >>> it catch up. >>> >>> If I had more time I would have pushed more on the ARM series, but.. yeah. >> >> IIUC Alex is waiting 6.2 release to respin. >> > > How does the Kconfig for ARM improvements go? I mean I think those > improvements (enabling only compatible boards with the chosen accelerators) > are important for both tcg-kvm split and possibly for modularization of ARM > accelerators too right?
I think we all (Alex/you/me) reached the same point where builds work but current the testing framework isn't ready for non-TCG or modularized-TCG so the CI ends failing. I don't want to push for 'CI build-only' because most of the annoying problems were from runtime (interfaces not resolved, ... which are important when using modules or board with unavailable devices). I tried to address that with a QMP command to query accelerators but there is a disagreement whether we should query for available/built-in/ loaded/modularized-but-not-installed/...). At this point I think I fairly understand the technical problems but misunderstand the big picture here, in particular w.r.t. management apps. I spent too many time on this to appear enthusiastic, sorry.
