Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 03/26] ARM: GICv3 ITS: allocate device and collection table

[Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 20/01/17 11:12, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 04/01/2017 22:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> Each ITS maps a pair of a DeviceID (usually the PCI b/d/f triplet) and
>>> an EventID (the MSI payload or interrupt ID) to a pair of LPI number
>>> and collection ID, which points to the target CPU.
>>> This mapping is stored in the device and collection tables, which
>>> software
>>> has to provide for the ITS to use.
>>> Allocate the required memory and hand it the ITS.
>>> The maximum number of devices is limited to a compile-time constant
>>> exposed in Kconfig.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  xen/arch/arm/Kconfig          |   6 +++
>>>  xen/arch/arm/gic-its.c        | 114
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c         |   5 ++
>>>  xen/include/asm-arm/bitops.h  |   1 +
>>>  xen/include/asm-arm/gic-its.h |  51 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  5 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> index a7d941c..a369305 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> @@ -59,6 +59,12 @@ config MAX_HOST_LPI_BITS
>>>            This can be overriden on the command line with the
>>> max_lpi_bits
>>>            parameter.
>>>
>>> +config MAX_ITS_PCI_BUSSES
>>> +        depends on HAS_ITS
>>> +        int "Number of PCI busses the ITS supports (4)"
>>> +        range 1 1024
>>> +        default "4"
>>
>> Given that any kind of devices can be behind an ITS, including non-PCI
>> devices, I think it is best to call this MAX_PHYS_ITS_DEVICES.
> 
> I don't think we should limit the number of devices supported at
> compilation time. We aim to have a single Xen binary running on any
> board. The best would be to guess the number at runtime, but I would be
> fine with a command line options.

Yes, so I changed this already to specify the number of devices and will
now also add a command line option.
So do you want to get rid of the Kconfig entirely to just go with
#define-ing the default value in the code?
Or do we still want to have this easily accessible way of changing the
default, at least for the first time to simplify experimentation?

Cheers,
Andre.

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