Re: [PATCH 01/10] xen/arm: introduce domain on Static Allocation

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 09/06/2021 10:56, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi All,
Hi,

> > On 7 Jun 2021, at 19:09, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx 
> > <mailto:julien@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > Feel free to propose one. I suggested to use /reserved-memory because 
> > this is the approach that makes the most sense to me (see my reply above).
> > TBH, even after your explanation, I am still a bit puzzled into why 
> > /reserved-memory cannot be leveraged to exclude domain region from the 
> > hypervisor allocator.
> I really tend to think that the original solution from Penny is for now 
> the easiest and simplest to document.
I can live with Penny's solution so long we don't duplicate the parsing 
and we don't create new datastructure in Xen for the new type of 
reserved memory. However...
> In the long term, using directly memory and giving in it the address 
> range directly is the most natural solution but that would clash with 
> the current usage for it.
... we are already going to have quite some churn to support the system 
device-tree. So I don't want yet another binding to be invented in a few 
months time.
IOW, the new binding should be a long term solution rather than a 
temporary one to fill the gap until we agree on what you call "domain v2".
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall