Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2][PATCH] arm-acpi: Add ITS Support for Dom0

[Manish Jaggi <mjaggi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/13/2017 4:58 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/06/17 12:02, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > > Will the below code be ok?
> > > If you noticed, I didn't say this code is wrong. Instead I asked why
> > > you use the same ID. Meaning, is there anything in the DSDT requiring
> > > this value?
> > >
> > > > + int tras_id = 0;
> > > unsigned.
> > >
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry)
> > > > + {
> > > > +    gic_its->translation_id = ++trans_id;
> > > You start the translation ID at 1. Why?
> > as per the ACPI spec the value should be unique to each GIC ITS unit.
> > Does starting with 1 break anything? Or should I start with a magic 
> > number?
> Rather than arguing on the start value here, you should have first 
> answer to the question regarding the usage of translation_id.
in v1 I assumed that it would be the same as read from host its tables, 
so it would have a unique value as programmed by host firmware.
> I understand that nobody is using it today. However, when I asked 
> around me nobody ruled out to any future usage of GIC ITS ID and 
> request this to be kept as it is.
> This means that you can simply copy over the ACPI tables. Rather 
> regenerating them.
I dont follow your comment, a bit confused
In v1 you mentioned that "Please explain why you need to have the same 
ID as the host."
now when you say we copy over the translation_id would be same as that 
of host?
> Cheers,

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