Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] hw/arm: Add Arm Enterprise machine type

[Andrew Jones]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:20:03AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 25 July 2018 at 11:17, Hongbo Zhang <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On 25 July 2018 at 17:13, Ard Biesheuvel <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On 25 July 2018 at 11:09, Hongbo Zhang <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> On 25 July 2018 at 17:01, Ard Biesheuvel <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>> On 25 July 2018 at 10:48, Daniel P. Berrangé <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:30:52PM +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
> >>>>>> For the Aarch64, there is one machine 'virt', it is primarily meant to
> >>>>>> run on KVM and execute virtualization workloads, but we need an
> >>>>>> environment as faithful as possible to physical hardware, for 
> >>>>>> supporting
> >>>>>> firmware and OS development for pysical Aarch64 machines.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This patch introduces new machine type 'Enterprise' with main features:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The 'enterprise' name is really awful - this is essentially a marketing
> >>>>> term completely devoid of any useful meaning.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You had previously called this "sbsa" which IIUC was related to a real
> >>>>> world hardware specification that it was based on. IOW, I think this old
> >>>>> name was preferrable to calling it "enterprise".
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I couldn't agree more. However, IIUC this change was made at the
> >>>> request of one of the reviewers, although I wasn't part of the
> >>>> discussion at that point, so I'm not sure who it was.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hongbo, could you please share a link to that discussion?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Ard.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> V1 discussion here:
> >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg545775.html
> >>>
> >>
> >> So who asked for the sbsa -> enterprise change?
> >
> > Actually nobody, but it was argued that sbsa does not require ehci and
> > ahci etc, then we should find a name fitting for this platform better.
> 
> That doesn't make sense to me. The SBSA describes a minimal
> configuration, it does not limit what peripherals may be attached to
> the core system.
>

Hi Ard,

I think that a machine model named 'sbsa' should provide all SBSA required
hardware, and nothing else, while providing a means to easily extend the
machine beyond that in any way the user likes. The user can easily add
devices with the command line and/or by using -readconfig to build a
"typical" machine. Note, it should even be possible to add, e.g. an ACHI
controller, to the memory map using the platform bus, if that's preferred
over PCIe.

Thanks,
drew