[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] xen/arm/static-shmem: Static-shmem should be direct-mapped for direct-mapped domains
- To: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@xxxxxxx>
- From: Henry Wang <xin.wang2@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 07:16:42 +0800
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=lists.xenproject.org smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none (0)
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=akZ4jp/WdYcgcYndzHzWDNr2zMLdJ+e/qXQx01Jh8X4=; b=CsQIar/n6r2w5gVKtsfp+LmHGw37+SMiHVUL4za9hau1jTZF9iy+3VZLx+wxLVofWGmGtnFSP+RZDK64mbKQfBErf6NBETSH3sxvf3ZYU/vOPYe2AULKqda1f43dYh4wwtSOyXyHgSt93D5dMz0antRUzjQ78wtQWz6Gfjf085JwJqBBN6cBDUnTvH/TtYRTTaSKwQtsPMGQ9aNn/aSFfJubg4/CLykrraQrbyX6+9HmGecoq0aiRuT7xbAfdrBn2aenPnKe3+mjzJeeo1v6i0/SkXRwjdtQHD1wC9yG78xDYhq5WY63vV7pjMEUhHud7/5kziLVLHsRGt/vW6shYQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=USfY+x4hKEmhAlpZihXdUije6QIq+gcJPe943VpabUmnAbjZit1xsLH7xudTOk9oQnQtLgud2yZImbHwOtINROmVwtgTeb1dztIO6zUIeK+vH5/fb90VbFZQK3GbY+zoykhXrrEcl1veMxqA0zCNvUVPb2X2/LuA0rJF4ZAHHhtWyb6dwmlIu0Wx0yD/zZMUtsAPvu8FVrIMbxvTgwuuUUqSJkiT5CI74wYhPblUOA54pAyHCK8Oh+O1GgfI8lC9kQd7Il4aei0I/Nn99XGQ/U9nRFJINxIO7Xp3+Qklhj1roGdFE+04zDxERYnwklH40RPuOkyFEq5+sU5DlUQBLA==
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, "Volodymyr Babchuk" <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 20 May 2024 23:17:19 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
Hi Michal,
On 5/21/2024 12:09 AM, Michal Orzel wrote:
Thanks. I will take the tag if you are ok with above diff (for the case
if this series goes in later than Luca's).
I would move this check to process_shm() right after "gbase = dt_read_paddr"
setting.
This would be the most natural placement for such a check.
That sounds good. Thanks! IIUC we only need to add the check for the
pbase != INVALID_PADDR case correct?
Yes, but at the same time I wonder whether we should also return error if a
user omits pbase
for direct mapped domain.
I think this makes sense. So I will add also a check for the case if
users omit pbase in the device tree for the direct mapped domain.
Kind regards,
Henry
~Michal
|
