On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:34:56AM +0100, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
On 19 April 2013 15:00, Peter Maydell peter.maydell@linaro.org wrote:
On 19 April 2013 10:27, Will Deacon will.deacon@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:25:35AM +0100, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
I am not against using 8250 emulation (as far as it solves printk issues for kernel booting logs), but my point is why not to add early read-write support for virtio console, which also can be useful in emulation less mach-virt environment also ?
We can have both, but only one of those requires a change to the virtio specification.
I don't think avoiding writing a spec is necessarily a good reason for insisting on emulation of a lump of hardware 95% of whose capabilities you aren't going to use...
True. Also 8250 will require emulation of registers, and i am not sure about if mach-virt will have any emulation of real hw ?
The point of mach-virt is that it is completely parameterised. So, if you're not emulating an 8250, then don't tell the kernel that you have one! Similarly, if you *do* emulate it, then either create a device-tree node for it or pass the appropriate earlyprintk= string on the command line.
As far as kvmtool is concerned, we'd probably have a new command-line option for arm64, allowing you to specify the early console device.
Will