[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 22/25 v6] xen/arm: vpl011: Add support for vuart console in xenconsole
Hi Stefano, Can we make CONFIG_VUART_CONSOLE dependent on CONFIG_SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE? CONFIG_SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE is a Kconfig option while CONFIG_VUART_CONSOLE is an option defined in the .mk file which is used while compiling the toolstack. So if I try to do something like this in arm64.mk/arm32.mk file, I am not sure if CONFIG_SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE definition will be available (since .config would not be generated) if I have not compiled Xen hypervisor code first: ifeq ($(CONFIG_SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE),y) CONFIG_VUART_CONSOLE := y endif Regards, Bhupinder On 22 July 2017 at 01:14, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 18/07/17 21:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> > On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Bhupinder Thakur wrote: >> > > This patch finally adds the support for vuart console. It adds >> > > two new fields in the console initialization: >> > > >> > > - optional >> > > - prefer_gnttab >> > > >> > > optional flag tells whether the console is optional. >> > > >> > > prefer_gnttab tells whether the ring buffer should be allocated using >> > > grant table. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Bhupinder Thakur <bhupinder.thakur@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > --- >> > > CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > CC: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > CC: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> >> > > >> > > Changes since v4: >> > > - Renamed VUART_CFLAGS- to CFLAGS_vuart- in the Makefile as per the >> > > convention. >> > > >> > > config/arm32.mk | 1 + >> > > config/arm64.mk | 1 + >> > > tools/console/Makefile | 3 ++- >> > > tools/console/daemon/io.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> > > 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/config/arm32.mk b/config/arm32.mk >> > > index f95228e..b9f23fe 100644 >> > > --- a/config/arm32.mk >> > > +++ b/config/arm32.mk >> > > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ >> > > CONFIG_ARM := y >> > > CONFIG_ARM_32 := y >> > > +CONFIG_VUART_CONSOLE := y >> > > CONFIG_ARM_$(XEN_OS) := y >> > > >> > > CONFIG_XEN_INSTALL_SUFFIX := >> > >> > What about leaving this off for ARM32 by default? >> >> Why? This will only disable xenconsole changes and not the hypervisor. The >> changes are quite tiny, so I would even be in favor of enabling for all >> architectures. >> >> Or are you suggesting to disable the VPL011 emulation in the hypervisor? But >> I >> don't see the emulation AArch64 specific, and a user could disable it if he >> doesn't want it... > > I was thinking that the virtual pl011 is mostly useful for SBSA > compliance, which doesn't really apply to ARM32 (there are no ARM32 SBSA > compliant platforms as far as I am aware). > > Given that we don't need vpl011 on ARM32, I thought we might as well > disable it. Less code the better. I wouldn't go as far as introducing > more #ifdefs to disable it, but I would make use of the existing config > options to turn it off by default on ARM32. Does it make sense? > > That said, you are right that there is no point in disabling only > CONFIG_VUART_CONSOLE, which affects the tools only. We should really > disable SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE by default on ARM32. In fact, ideally > CONFIG_VUART_CONSOLE would be set dependning on the value of > SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE. What do you think? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |