|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Minios-devel] [UNIKRAFT PATCHv5 24/46] plat/kvm: Introduce a time_ops for different architectures
On 07.09.2018 07:57, Wei Chen (Arm Technology China) wrote: Hi Simon,-----Original Message----- From: Simon Kuenzer <simon.kuenzer@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: 2018年9月6日 23:53 To: Wei Chen (Arm Technology China) <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>; minios- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China) <Kaly.Xin@xxxxxxx>; nd <nd@xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Minios-devel] [UNIKRAFT PATCHv5 24/46] plat/kvm: Introduce a time_ops for different architectures Hi Wei, On 10.08.2018 09:08, Wei Chen wrote:Different architectures have different timer implementation. In order to avoid using too many #ifdef, we introduce this time_ops for different architectures to implement arch_timer_ops.does the timer implementation this change during runtime or can you settle on one specific timer implementation during compile time?No, timer implementation is settled during compile time, it could not be changed during runtime.Why not providing a different C file that implements your ARM timer? We could avoid the indirection and save the timeops struct.I have implemented a different C file for ARM timer already. But I can't use the same API names for ARM timer library. Because the tscclock_ prefix is x86 specific. If I don't use the arch_timer_ops to standardize the callback function, in ukplat_monotonic_clock we have to use: Now I see the problem. Yes, that move with tscclock wasn't clever.I think you could solve it by moving time.c and tscclock.c to the x86/ subdirectory and create a new file in arm or arm64 with your implementation. You would then provide the UKPLAT API functions (ukplat_monotonic_clock() and so on) directly with your files.
_______________________________________________ Minios-devel mailing list Minios-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/minios-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |