|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v1 10/12] hw/arm: introduce xenpv machine
On 02/12/2022 03:24, Garhwal, Vikram wrote: Hi Julien, Hi Vikram,I am having trouble to differentiate your answers from my remark. For instance... From: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> Date: Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 10:48 AM To: Garhwal, Vikram <vikram.garhwal@xxxxxxx>, qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx <qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Stabellini, Stefano <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>, open list:ARM TCG CPUs <qemu-arm@xxxxxxxxxx>, open list:X86 Xen CPUs <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/12] hw/arm: introduce xenpv machine Hi, There seem to be some missing patches on xen-devel (including the cover letter). Is that expected? Not sure what went wrong there. I can see all of these on QEMU-devel. Perhaps xen-devel is not in maintainer’s list for all the xen files? On 15/10/2022 06:07, Vikram Garhwal wrote:Add a new machine xenpv which creates a IOREQ server to register/connect with Xen Hypervisor.I don't like the name 'xenpv' because it doesn't convey the fact that some of the HW may be emulated rather than para-virtualized. In fact one may only want to use for emulating devices. Potential name would be 'xen-arm' or re-using 'virt' but with 'accel=xen' to select a Xen layout. ... the first two lines are my remarks and the 3rd is your answer. Can you configure your e-mail client to do proper quoting? [...] + dev = qdev_new(TYPE_TPM_TIS_SYSBUS); + object_property_set_link(OBJECT(dev), "tpmdev", OBJECT(be), &errp); + object_property_set_str(OBJECT(dev), "tpmdev", be->id, &errp); + busdev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(dev); + sysbus_realize_and_unref(busdev, &error_fatal); + sysbus_mmio_map(busdev, 0, GUEST_TPM_BASE);I can't find where GUEST_TPM_BASE is defined. But then the guest memory layout is not expected to be stable. With your current approach, it means QEMU would need to be rebuilt for every Xen version. Is it what we want? I cannot think of better way to do this. Either we add the the def here or rebuild it if GUEST_TPM_BASE changes for each xen version. The alternative would be to specify the address on the QEMU command line. The advantage is you could build a system where each guests have different layout. Cheers, -- Julien Grall
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |