Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V2 7/25] tools/libacpi: Add new fields in acpi_config for DMAR table

[Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2017年08月23日 16:04, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:52:01PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote:
>> On 2017年08月23日 00:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>> +    drhd = (struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *)((void*)dmar + 
>>>>> sizeof(*dmar));
>>>>> +    drhd->type = ACPI_DMAR_TYPE_HARDWARE_UNIT;
>>>>> +    drhd->length = sizeof(*drhd) + ioapic_scope_size;
>>>>> +    drhd->flags = ACPI_DMAR_INCLUDE_PCI_ALL;
>>>>> +    drhd->pci_segment = 0;
>>>>> +    drhd->base_address = config->iommu_base_addr;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    scope = &drhd->scope[0];
>>>>> +    scope->type = ACPI_DMAR_DEVICE_SCOPE_IOAPIC;
>>>>> +    scope->length = ioapic_scope_size;
>>>>> +    scope->enumeration_id = config->ioapic_id;
>>>>> +    scope->bus = I440_PSEUDO_BUS_PLATFORM;
>>>>> +    scope->path[0] = I440_PSEUDO_DEVFN_IOAPIC;
>>> I'm not sure whether this constants should instead be fields in the
>>> acpi_config struct passed down from libxl. libxc shouldn't really need
>>> to know anything about which chipset a VM is using.
>>
>> How about rename I440_PSEUDO_XXX to VIOMMU_PSEUDO_XXX?
> 
> I'm not really complaining about the naming, I'm just saying that I'm
> not sure whether this constants should live in libxl. It would be
> better IMHO if they where defined in some libxl x86 specific header,
> and passed to libxc inside of the acpi_config struct.
> 
> At the end it is libxl which decides which chipset the VM is going to
> use, not libxc.

We can do that but the bdf is reserved for IOAPIC and should be same for
different chipset. Do we still need to pass it via acpi_config?


> 
> Roger.
> 


-- 
Best regards
Tianyu Lan

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