On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:58:39AM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 4/2/25 10:22, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 00:23, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
All previous raspi machines can be created using the generic machine. Deprecate the old names to maintain a single one. Update the tests.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst index 4a3c302962a..c9a11a52f78 100644 --- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst +++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst @@ -257,6 +257,19 @@ Big-Endian variants of MicroBlaze ``petalogix-ml605`` and ``xlnx-zynqmp-pmu`` ma Both ``petalogix-ml605`` and ``xlnx-zynqmp-pmu`` were added for little endian CPUs. Big endian support is not tested.
+ARM ``raspi0``, ``raspi1ap``, ``raspi2b``, ``raspi3ap``, ``raspi3b`` and ``raspi4b`` machines (since 10.0) +'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' + +The Raspberry Pi machines have been unified under the generic ``raspi`` machine, +which takes the model as argument. + + - `raspi0`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=Zero`` + - `raspi1ap`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=1A+`` + - `raspi2b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=2B`` + - `raspi3ap`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=3A+`` + - `raspi3b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=3B`` + - `raspi4b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=4B``
This is not how we typically handle "we have a bunch of different devboards in one family". What's wrong with the existing set of machine names?
Zoltan and you don't want to add more machine names, then you don't want a generic machine. This is very confusing.
I said either rastpi4b,revision=1.4 or -machine raspi4b -memory 4g would be better IMHO. Peter perefers -memory which is also fine with me. I just don't think adding more machine names where only RAM size is different would be better than using -memory for that as usual.
I'm the annoying root cause of this as I had filed this: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/2797#note_2326724893 Which was really a question around providing more memory options, I'm happy seeing a lot of thought has gone into my simple question/request, but it's unclear reading this thread where things concluded. Is there a chance these are in a branch that one could build against to get consensus on some of this style vs substance stuff? I get it that it's tricky and do generally think that one could restrict armhf vs arm64 to having 64-bit support in the (hypervisor) OS. I was wanting to tweak some disk images before imaging a bunch of nvme for use and saw using kvm/qemu as a straightforward path to doing that on my laptop (x86_64) before firing up a bunch of compute modules etc. - Jared [i'm not subscribed to the qemu-dev list, so I expect mailman will hold/bounce me] -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.