Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 0/7] xen/arm: Add GICv3 support

[Vijay Kilari <vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (reinstating the cc)
>
> On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 20:19 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Already I have booted domU with GICv3 patches with changes to
>> xl tool.
>
> Excellent!
>
>>  Need some time to make it generic and send patches.
>
> Perhaps you could send out whatever dirty version you have now for
> people who want to try GICv3 to play with?

If there are no further comments on GICv3 patches,
I can fix pending NITs and send new version, which you can merge.
This helps to test DomUs and your 48 bit support RFC patches.

>
>>  BTW, I have following questions
>>
>> 1) The device tree is generated by xl tool for domU is hardcoding
>> GICv2 node. How to generate device tree for GICv2 & GICv3 based on DomU?
>> Should we always generate GIC node based on HW support  (by query hw
>> support via domctl) ?
>
> Something like that, yes.
>
> There's a few different aspects which need to be taken care of, first of
> all what the hardware+Xen actual support (v2 only, v3 only, v3 w/ v2
> compat, vN+1 etc) and what the guest cfg actually asks for, what to do
> if the guest cfg asks for something which Xen can't manage (e.g. v2 on a
> v3 only system etc).
>
> I think Julien is adding a domctl to control the number of SPIs in his
> passthrough series. It probably makes sense to extend that into a more
> generic "gic cfg" domctl with a field for requesting the version of gic
> to support for this guest, with an explicit "default" setting for
> letting Xen choose. I think it would be preferable to do all the gic
> setup in one domctl, rather than proliferate loads of them.
>

 Any reference to Julien's patches for the same?

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel