[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07/24] xen/arm: Xen detection and shared_info page mapping
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 04:33:49PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > Check for a "/xen" node in the device tree, if it is present set > > xen_domain_type to XEN_HVM_DOMAIN and continue initialization. > > > > Map the real shared info page using XENMEM_add_to_physmap with > > XENMAPSPACE_shared_info. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 56 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c > > index d27c2a6..8c923af 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c > > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ > > #include <asm/xen/hypervisor.h> > > #include <asm/xen/hypercall.h> > > #include <linux/module.h> > > +#include <linux/of.h> > > +#include <linux/of_irq.h> > > +#include <linux/of_address.h> > > > > struct start_info _xen_start_info; > > struct start_info *xen_start_info = &_xen_start_info; > > @@ -33,3 +36,56 @@ int xen_remap_domain_mfn_range(struct vm_area_struct > > *vma, > > return -ENOSYS; > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_remap_domain_mfn_range); > > + > > +/* > > + * == Xen Device Tree format == > > + * - /xen node; > > + * - compatible "arm,xen"; > > + * - one interrupt for Xen event notifications; > > + * - one memory region to map the grant_table. > > + */ > > +static int __init xen_guest_init(void) > > +{ > > + int cpu; > > + struct xen_add_to_physmap xatp; > > + static struct shared_info *shared_info_page = 0; > > + struct device_node *node; > > + > > + node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,xen"); > > + if (!node) { > > + pr_info("No Xen support\n"); > > I don't think the pr_info is appropiate here? Yes, you are right. In fact I had already turned it into a pr_debug. > > + return 0; > > Should this be -ENODEV? Considering that xen_guest_init is called by a core_initcall, I didn't want to return an error just because Xen is not present on the platform. > > + } > > + xen_domain_type = XEN_HVM_DOMAIN; > > + > > + if (!shared_info_page) > > + shared_info_page = (struct shared_info *) > > + get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!shared_info_page) { > > + pr_err("not enough memory"); > > \n OK > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + } > > + xatp.domid = DOMID_SELF; > > + xatp.idx = 0; > > + xatp.space = XENMAPSPACE_shared_info; > > + xatp.gpfn = __pa(shared_info_page) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > + if (HYPERVISOR_memory_op(XENMEM_add_to_physmap, &xatp)) > > + BUG(); > > + > > + HYPERVISOR_shared_info = (struct shared_info *)shared_info_page; > > + > > + /* xen_vcpu is a pointer to the vcpu_info struct in the shared_info > > + * page, we use it in the event channel upcall and in some pvclock > > + * related functions. We don't need the vcpu_info placement > > + * optimizations because we don't use any pv_mmu or pv_irq op on > > + * HVM. > > + * When xen_hvm_init_shared_info is run at boot time only vcpu 0 is > > + * online but xen_hvm_init_shared_info is run at resume time too and > > + * in that case multiple vcpus might be online. */ > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { > > + per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) = > > + &HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[cpu]; > > + } > > + return 0; > > This above looks stringly similar to the x86 one. Could it be > abstracted away to share the same code? Or is that something that > ought to be done later on when there is more meat on the bone? Actually I had to remove these three lines because on ARM we are going to have just one vcpu_info struct in the shared_info page and then rely on VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |