Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 05/21] xen/arm: follow-up to allow DOM0 manage IRQ and MMIO

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 15:32 -0700, Julien Grall wrote:
> The current solution doesn't map the device into DOM0 memory but the 
> device is still described in the device tree.

I had some thoughts on that in the thread on the 00/21 mail BTW.

> With the new property "xen,passthrough", we would have to remove the 
> node from DOM0, or teach DOM0 that the device should not be used.

You would translate it into status="disabled" for dom0, that's all, no
need to remove anything.

> 
> Overall, I don't think dropping the node in DOM0 device tree will impact 
> it. If it's the case that would mean the device should not be 
> passthrough to another guest. So I will give a look to introduce this 
> new property. Shall I send a patch to the device tree bindings ML?
> 
> BTW, I don't think the new property should be a boolean. Use only the 
> name should be enough here.

That's what boolean means in DT context, a name without a value.

> 

> >> +        {
> >> +            res = route_irq_to_guest(d, irq, dt_node_name(dev));
> >> +            if ( res )
> >> +            {
> >> +                printk(XENLOG_ERR "Unable to route IRQ %u to domain %u\n",
> >> +                       irq, d->domain_id);
> >> +                return res;
> >> +            }
> >> +        }
> >>       }
> >>
> >> -    /* Map the address ranges */
> >> +    /* Give permission and map MMIOs */
> >
> > Permissions are now given above, not below, aren't they?
> 
> Only permission for IRQ. The MMIO ones are given few lines below.

Ah, right.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel