| Message ID | 20230411224746.16152-11-vikram.garhwal@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce xenpvh machine for arm architecture | expand |
Vikram Garhwal <vikram.garhwal@amd.com> writes: > Add CONFIG_XEN for aarch64 device to support build for ARM targets. > > Signed-off-by: Vikram Garhwal <vikram.garhwal@amd.com> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@amd.com> > Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > --- > meson.build | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meson.build b/meson.build > index 52c3995c9d..eb5bb305ae 100644 > --- a/meson.build > +++ b/meson.build > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ endif > if cpu in ['x86', 'x86_64', 'arm', 'aarch64'] > # i386 emulator provides xenpv machine type for multiple architectures > accelerator_targets += { > - 'CONFIG_XEN': ['i386-softmmu', 'x86_64-softmmu'], > + 'CONFIG_XEN': ['i386-softmmu', 'x86_64-softmmu', > 'aarch64-softmmu'], I'm not familiar with Xen, so pardon my ignorance, but would it (ever) make sense to do a 1:1 map of host architecture and qemu target? So we don't have to deal with having a build on x86 pulling aarch64-softmmu and vice-versa. Do we expect both x86_64-softmmu and aarch64-softmmu binaries to be used in the same host?
Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de> writes: > Vikram Garhwal <vikram.garhwal@amd.com> writes: > >> Add CONFIG_XEN for aarch64 device to support build for ARM targets. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vikram Garhwal <vikram.garhwal@amd.com> >> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@amd.com> >> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >> --- >> meson.build | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/meson.build b/meson.build >> index 52c3995c9d..eb5bb305ae 100644 >> --- a/meson.build >> +++ b/meson.build >> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ endif >> if cpu in ['x86', 'x86_64', 'arm', 'aarch64'] >> # i386 emulator provides xenpv machine type for multiple architectures >> accelerator_targets += { >> - 'CONFIG_XEN': ['i386-softmmu', 'x86_64-softmmu'], >> + 'CONFIG_XEN': ['i386-softmmu', 'x86_64-softmmu', >> 'aarch64-softmmu'], > > I'm not familiar with Xen, so pardon my ignorance, but would it (ever) > make sense to do a 1:1 map of host architecture and qemu target? So we > don't have to deal with having a build on x86 pulling aarch64-softmmu > and vice-versa. > > Do we expect both x86_64-softmmu and aarch64-softmmu binaries to be used > in the same host? Xen is different from the other accelerators as it isn't really guest CPU aware. It is merely io device emulation backend albeit one that supports a non-paravirtualised guest on x86. But you are right that using qemu-system-i386 as a backend on aarch64 hosts does cause some cognitive dissonance for users. For aarch64 hosts we would only support the VirtIO guests.
diff --git a/meson.build b/meson.build index 52c3995c9d..eb5bb305ae 100644 --- a/meson.build +++ b/meson.build @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ endif if cpu in ['x86', 'x86_64', 'arm', 'aarch64'] # i386 emulator provides xenpv machine type for multiple architectures accelerator_targets += { - 'CONFIG_XEN': ['i386-softmmu', 'x86_64-softmmu'], + 'CONFIG_XEN': ['i386-softmmu', 'x86_64-softmmu', 'aarch64-softmmu'], } endif if cpu in ['x86', 'x86_64']