[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/7] xen/arm: add generic SCI subsystem
On 24.03.2025 14:11, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On 24/03/2025 12:05, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.03.2025 10:00, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote: >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> Let me answer one of your comment. Please see below: >>> >>> On 11/03/2025 13:43, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 11.03.2025 12:16, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>>>> @@ -526,6 +526,12 @@ S: Supported >>>>> F: xen/arch/arm/include/asm/tee/ >>> [snip] >>>>> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h >>>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h >>>>> @@ -327,6 +327,8 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(vcpu_guest_context_t); >>>>> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_TEE_OPTEE 1 >>>>> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_TEE_FFA 2 >>>>> >>>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_ARM_SCI_NONE 0 >>>>> + >>>>> struct xen_arch_domainconfig { >>>>> /* IN/OUT */ >>>>> uint8_t gic_version; >>>>> @@ -350,6 +352,8 @@ struct xen_arch_domainconfig { >>>>> * >>>>> */ >>>>> uint32_t clock_frequency; >>>>> + /* IN */ >>>>> + uint8_t arm_sci_type; >>>>> }; >>>> You're not re-using a pre-existing padding field, so I don't see how you >>>> can get away without bumping XEN_DOMCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION. >>> We are reusing an existing padding field in xen_domctl, which is defined >>> as pad[128]. >>> >>> The xen_arch_domainconfig structure is a part of the following domctl >>> structures: >>> >>> - xen_domctl_createdomain >>> >>> - xen_domctl_getdomaininfo >>> >>> These structures are included in the union within xen_domctl, which >>> defines pad[128] for padding. >> Except that "an existing padding field" means a field which isn't just >> there in space, but is also checked to be zero right now. That is, new >> code setting the field to non-zero needs to properly get an error >> indicator back from an older hypervisor. > > I completely agree with you that XEN_DOMCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION should be > incremented > > before the changes are merged. I just wanted to point out that we do not > exceed the size of the xen_domctl padding. If you are okay with the > fields we have added, then XEN_DOMCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION will be updated > in the next patch series. > >> but is also checked to be zero right now. > > Just out of curiosity, I have one more question: I couldn't find the > check you've mentioned. Could you point me to where Xen or > the toolstack checks the domctl structure for 0? I would greatly > appreciate it if you could show me. There's no such check here (as far as I'm aware), hence why the interface version bump is necessary. There are _other_ padding fields which do have appropriate checks, and hence could be assigned purpose without bumping the interface version. Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |