From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 07/13] xen/passthrough: extend
 hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 13:48:18 +0800
Message-ID: <55543722.8030405@intel.com>
References: <1428657724-3498-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1428657724-3498-8-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<554CDF5E.8050806@citrix.com> <55506B8C.2070903@intel.com>
	<55507BA1.7000008@citrix.com>
	<5550A71F0200007800078E2B@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <5550A71F0200007800078E2B@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Cc: tim@xen.org, kevin.tian@intel.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, yang.z.zhang@intel.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 2015/5/11 18:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 11.05.15 at 11:51, <julien.grall@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/05/15 09:42, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>> diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
>>> b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
>>> index 8a9b58b..a3e6383 100644
>>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
>>> @@ -2599,7 +2599,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_destroy_iommu_domain(struct
>>> iommu_domain *domain)
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   static int arm_smmu_assign_dev(struct domain *d, u8 devfn,
>>> -                              struct device *dev)
>>> +                              struct device *dev, u32 flag)
>>>   {
>>>          struct iommu_domain *domain;
>>>          struct arm_smmu_xen_domain *xen_domain;
>>> diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
>>> b/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
>>> index 377d41d..97e7fc5 100644
>>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
>>> @@ -41,7 +41,8 @@ int iommu_assign_dt_device(struct domain *d, struct
>>> dt_device_node *dev)
>>>       if ( !list_empty(&dev->domain_list) )
>>>           goto fail;
>>>
>>> -    rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, 0, dt_to_dev(dev));
>>> +    rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, 0, dt_to_dev(dev),
>>> +                                         XEN_DOMCTL_PCIDEV_RDM_TRY);
>>
>> On ARM we can passthrough 2 different types of device: PCI device and
>> platform device described in the device tree (it's a tree representation
>> of the hardware).
>>
>> This assign_device callback deals with the latter. So from the name the
>> value doesn't look right.
>
> Yeah, the constant name probably shouldn't refer to PCI, but simply
> to pass-through.
>

What about XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_XXX? I mean this may be specific to 
device, right?

Thanks
Tiejun