Re: RFC: PCI devices passthrough on Arm design proposal

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko <Oleksandr_Andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>]

On 7/17/20 2:26 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 17/07/2020 08:41, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>> We need to come up with something similar for dom0less too. It could be
>>>> exactly the same thing (a list of BDFs as strings as a device tree
>>>> property) or something else if we can come up with a better idea.
>>> Fully agree.
>>> Maybe a tree topology could allow more possibilities (like giving BAR 
>>> values) in the future.
>>>>
>>>>> # Emulated PCI device tree node in libxl:
>>>>>
>>>>> Libxl is creating a virtual PCI device tree node in the device tree to 
>>>>> enable the guest OS to discover the virtual PCI during guest boot. We 
>>>>> introduced the new config option [vpci="pci_ecam"] for guests. When this 
>>>>> config option is enabled in a guest configuration, a PCI device tree node 
>>>>> will be created in the guest device tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> A new area has been reserved in the arm guest physical map at which the 
>>>>> VPCI bus is declared in the device tree (reg and ranges parameters of the 
>>>>> node). A trap handler for the PCI ECAM access from guest has been 
>>>>> registered at the defined address and redirects requests to the VPCI 
>>>>> driver in Xen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Limitation:
>>>>> * Only one PCI device tree node is supported as of now.
>>>> I think vpci="pci_ecam" should be optional: if pci=[ "PCI_SPEC_STRING",
>>>> ...] is specififed, then vpci="pci_ecam" is implied.
>>>>
>>>> vpci="pci_ecam" is only useful one day in the future when we want to be
>>>> able to emulate other non-ecam host bridges. For now we could even skip
>>>> it.
>>> This would create a problem if xl is used to add a PCI device as we need 
>>> the PCI node to be in the DTB when the guest is created.
>>> I agree this is not needed but removing it might create more complexity in 
>>> the code.
>>
>> I would suggest we have it from day 0 as there are plenty of HW available 
>> which is not ECAM.
>>
>> Having vpci allows other bridges to be supported
>
> So I can understand why you would want to have a driver for non-ECAM host PCI 
> controller. However, why would you want to emulate a non-ECAM PCI controller 
> to a guest?
Indeed. No need to emulate non-ECAM
>
> Cheers,
>