[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] XEN tools for ARM64 build issue
Hi Jan, On 25/11/16 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote: On 25.11.16 at 16:30, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:On 23/11/16 10:47, Jan Beulich wrote:On 23.11.16 at 11:29, <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Building latest XEN master branch (58bd0c7985890e0292212f94a56235228a3445c3) for salvator-x platform using the same yocto as here https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_ARM_with_Virtualization_Extensions/Salvator-X I've faced following issue: Maximum error count (200) exceeded /home/aanisov/DEV/salvatorx-new/build/tmp/work/aarch64-poky-linux/xen/4.8.0+ gitAUTOINC+58bd0c7985-r0/git/tools/libxl/dsdt_anycpu_arm.asl 3: OperationRegion ( MSUM, SystemMemory, \_SB.MSUA, 1 ) Error 4084 - Object does not exist ^ (\_SB.MSUA)Looking at the source I see that this statement gets included for x86 only. Are you perhaps doing a cross build of the ARM tools on an x86 host? If so, it looks like some work would be needed to make that work (again? not sure if it ever worked), as there are various build host architecture conditionals in mk_dsdt.c.I gave a look at this error, I had in mind to replace all the #if defined(__*__) by the CONFIG_* equivalent. However, the CONFIG_* are not available for the tools. I guess we need to add them in the tools config.h. Any opinions?The CONFIG_* values are available in the Makefile (from config/arm*.mk). I think it would be better if the tool was told via command line option what architecture to build tables for. That would imply converting the problematic #if-s to if()s. Of course the per-arch #include-s at the top may be a problem here, but then again I'm not convinced the full xen/arch-arm.h is really needed here (I'm pretty sure including xen/hvm/hvm_info_table.h would cause no issue for ARM, the more that nominally this is an arch-independent header anyway). FYI, I am only planning to fix the compilation issue as this is a problem for some user. Regarding hvm/hvm_info_table.h, It contains few things that are x86 specific (such as the PFN). Furthermore, I don't think this header should be included on ARM because it defines HVM_MAX_VCPUS and may cause confusion with GUEST_MAX_VCPUS the correct value for ARM guests. Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |