Re: [PATCH] arm: document "mach-virt" platform.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 17:24 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> I'm afraid I disagree with most of the above. The whole point of
> >> mach-virt is to provide a shell for DT platforms. None of this hardware
> >> is mandated. Instead, all the necessary information should be described
> >> in DT.
> > 
> > "Add support for the smallest, dumbest possible platform, to be
> >  used as a guest for KVM or other hypervisors.
> > 
> >  It only mandates a GIC and architected timers"
> > 
> > (your original commit message :-P)
> 
> Right. 1984, here we come. I'll disappear for a while, rewriting the
> history. More seriously, that was just me scheming to get it merged,
> hiding my cunning plan for mach-virt world domination!

:-)

> >> Actually, mach-virt doesn't really stand for Virtual Machine. It stands
> >> for virtual mach-* directory! Eventually, mach-virt should become the
> >> default platform, the one we use when we don't match anything else in
> >> the kernel
> > 
> > I can word it more like that for sure, along with the alternative
> > wording suggested by Christopher/Stefano to clarify the intent that
> > everything comes from DTB and removal of the specific requirements for
> > GIC/timer/PSCI I think that suit the (new) intention better?
> 
> Yes, please! :-)

OK, I'll come up with an updated version.

Cheers,
Ian.