[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC V2] xen: interface: introduce pvclk interface

>>> On 20.01.16 at 15:37, <van.freenix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:16:36AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.01.16 at 15:05, <van.freenix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:01:40AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.01.16 at 12:40, <van.freenix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 03:14:20AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20.01.16 at 09:31, <van.freenix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>And what I'm missing throughout the file is some description of how
>>>>>>clock events (interrupts?) are actually meant to make it into the
>>>>> I have a simple implementation v1 patch for linux, 
>>>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-01/msg01860.html.
>>>>> You can see how it works.
>>>>No, sorry, that's not the point of the inquiry. It seems to me that
>>>>there are more aspects to this interface, not directly related to
>>>>the request/reply protocol written down here, which need to be
>>>>spelled out event if they don't require any particular definitions
>>>>or type declarations.
>>> I try to follow you about clock events(interrupts?), not sure whether I 
>>> understand correct or not.
>>> clock in this file is the clk for a device. In linux side, it managed by 
>>> clk 
>>> subsystem, drivers/clk/xx.
>>> This is not the clock events or clock source in drivers/clocksource/xx.
>>> For the pvclk interface, there will be no interrupt for the guest.
>>Then (also considering the set of commands you propose) what
>>use is the clock to the guest? It can't get events from it, it can't
>>read its current value, all it can is get/set its rate, enable/disable,
>>and prepare/unprepare it. I may be lacking some ARM knowledge
>>here, but all of this looks pretty odd to me.
> I follow this 
> https://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/talk_5.pdf to do 
> platform device
> passthrough on ARM platform. I met the same issue as note in the ppt, at 
> page 24.
> In my test case, the uart driver works well without xen. There is serveral 
> function calls in the driver, such as
> clk = clk_get("uart2_root"),rate = clk_get_rate(clk), use rate to set 
> baudrate for uart.
> There is a clk tree in kernel without XEN or dom0 kernel like the following 
> (only an example):
> osc -
>     |-->pll1
>     |-->pll2
>          |-->pll2_div
>                |-->uart2_gate
>                        |-->uart2_root  --> clk for uart2
> uart2_root is directly handled by Dom0.If I assign uart2 to DomU, DomU does
> not have the clk tree as above, so DomU can not handle directly handle 
> uart2_root and the uart2 driver in
> DomU will run into failure to intialize the uart2 hardware IP.
> So I introudce pvclk. Pass the operation for uart2_root in DomU to Dom0 and 
> Dom0 directly handle the clock management hardware IP.
> Hope this is clear.

I'm afraid it's not, but it now looks even more like this is too ARM
specific for me to comment. I wonder whether a generic (not
ARM specific) PV I/O protocol is actually warranted here. In my
(presumably too simplistic) view controlling the clock of a passed
through platform device should be part of that pass-through,
not the subject of a PV side band protocol. From an abstract
pov the passed through device should work without any PV I/O
protocol; such protocols are generally only to accelerate I/O,
not to make things work in the first place.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.