From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AB5C433ED for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98E4861433 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 98E4861433 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xen.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.119415.225893 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lbl8k-0004ms-Ea; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:10 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 119415.225893; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lbl8k-0004ml-Bk; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:10 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 119415; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:09 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lbl8j-0004mg-Bv for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:09 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lbl8h-00077a-Cj; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:07 +0000 Received: from [54.239.6.186] (helo=a483e7b01a66.ant.amazon.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lbl8h-0007qZ-21; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:26:07 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject; bh=C90CyP+ruIQPPCv8QaI4mFnhpoGJnKM2i2JgHT7xgWw=; b=UBwnWcADh5TLGoCqoxe7layeZB elV4B7BWx0Wb0ieOie/uv52/To2Roh6/9SjttaLivir9cfwPgPXBoWwoBT9r2z6xY8U2b5iOeNwoi d/RbBDP21agp+KzEBryQFFa1cxqlSjqrBrHWzDPNjfyXstTAjTVi59jMg8ocan3bnwu8=; Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] xen/pci: Refactor MSI code that implements MSI functionality within XEN To: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= , Rahul Singh Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, bertrand.marquis@arm.com, Jan Beulich , Paul Durrant , Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu References: <7b6651f10922571a10685dc7652fbce03b6b6e51.1619453100.git.rahul.singh@arm.com> From: Julien Grall Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 15:26:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 28/04/2021 12:06, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 05:21:27PM +0100, Rahul Singh wrote: >> MSI code that implements MSI functionality to support MSI within XEN is >> not usable on ARM. Move the code under CONFIG_PCI_MSI_INTERCEPT flag to >> gate the code for ARM. >> >> Currently, we have no idea how MSI functionality will be supported for >> other architecture therefore we have decided to move the code under >> CONFIG_PCI_MSI_INTERCEPT. We know this is not the right flag to gate the >> code but to avoid an extra flag we decided to use this. >> >> No functional change intended. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh > > I think this is fine, as we don't really want to add another Kconfig > option (ie: CONFIG_PCI_MSI) for just the non explicitly intercept MSI > code. +1 This is code and therefore can be revisited once we have more data (e.g. a second arch that will re-use it). > > Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné Acked-by: Julien Grall Cheers, -- Julien Grall