From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/24] xen/arm: Implement hypercall PHYSDEVOP_{, un}map_pirq Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:22:04 +0000 Message-ID: <54EB61BC0200007800062AF5@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1421159133-31526-14-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <54C932BF.5070009@linaro.org> <54CA2709.9080409@linaro.org> <1424451224.30924.357.camel@citrix.com> <54EB01E102000078000625CB@mail.emea.novell.com> <1424705290.27930.161.camel@citrix.com> <54EB4CE7.3040509@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YPvlq-0003Um-I6 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:22:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54EB4CE7.3040509@linaro.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Julien Grall Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 23.02.15 at 16:53, wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On 23/02/15 15:28, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 09:33 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 20.02.15 at 17:53, wrote: >>>> Jan, do you have any feeling for how this is going to play out on x86 >>>> with the vapic stuff? >>> >>> The vapic logic shouldn't require any physdevop involvement, so if >>> I read right what you propose (not having such a requirement / >>> connection on ARM) either, I agree that a new domctl should be all >>> that's needed (if XEN_DOMCTL_{,un}bind_pt_irq can't be re-used). >> >> Actually, I think bind_pt_irq with a new PT_IRQ_TYPE_* would be a good >> option. >> >> An ARM SPI is a bit like an ISA IRQ, but not close enough to reuse IMHO >> (and the datatype would need widening). > > We have to think about MSI and other type too... Which that domctl already provides for. > In any case a DOMCTL is not suitable here because a guest kernel may > need to map/unmap IRQ too (think about ACPI or device passthrough). But not the physical IRQ I suppose. The virtual counterpart is what should be used there, and that's what said domctl extablishes. Jan