| Message ID | 20250408160802.49870-6-agarciav@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Hyperlaunch device tree for dom0 | expand |
On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig This really looks to be the first patch where it needs settling on whether all of this is to live under arch/x86/. If it is to, the reasons need writing down somewhere - maybe not here, but at least in the cover letter. > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > + > +menu "Domain Builder Features" > + > +config DOMAIN_BUILDER > + bool "Domain builder (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED > + select LIB_DEVICE_TREE Was this meant to be LIBFDT? Jan
On Thu Apr 10, 2025 at 10:08 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig > > This really looks to be the first patch where it needs settling on whether > all of this is to live under arch/x86/. If it is to, the reasons need writing > down somewhere - maybe not here, but at least in the cover letter. I need to think about it. I haven't yet reviewed all the history about the series and the related discussions on the matter. Moving this to common code ought to be simple enough, but merging dom0less into it seems like a pretty big undertaking. Presumably you merely mean the code location and the scope of the Kconfig? > >> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ >> + >> +menu "Domain Builder Features" >> + >> +config DOMAIN_BUILDER >> + bool "Domain builder (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED >> + select LIB_DEVICE_TREE > > Was this meant to be LIBFDT? > > Jan Yes, the next patch turns it into LIBFDT. I spent more than I should've wondering "How does the final series even work at all?" before looking ahead and noticing this select was adjusted on the wrong patch. Cheers, Alejandro
On 10.04.2025 14:52, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Thu Apr 10, 2025 at 10:08 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig >> >> This really looks to be the first patch where it needs settling on whether >> all of this is to live under arch/x86/. If it is to, the reasons need writing >> down somewhere - maybe not here, but at least in the cover letter. > > I need to think about it. I haven't yet reviewed all the history about > the series and the related discussions on the matter. Moving this to > common code ought to be simple enough, but merging dom0less into it > seems like a pretty big undertaking. Presumably you merely mean the code > location and the scope of the Kconfig? Code location only: Yes, definitely. Kconfig: The scope would presumably still be x86-only, until e.g. Arm was enabled, too. Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig index de2fa37f08..a31002324e 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig +++ b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig @@ -321,6 +321,8 @@ config UCODE_SCAN_DEFAULT Enable if you have a Linux-based dom0 with microcode attached to the initramfs. +source "arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig" + endmenu source "common/Kconfig" diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig b/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8ed493c3b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/Kconfig @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ + +menu "Domain Builder Features" + +config DOMAIN_BUILDER + bool "Domain builder (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED + select LIB_DEVICE_TREE + help + Enables the domain builder capability to configure boot domain + construction using a flattened device tree. + + This feature is currently experimental. + + If unsure, say N. + +endmenu