From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Fedin Subject: RE: [RFC 0/6] KVM: arm/arm64: gsi routing support Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:46:09 +0300 Message-ID: <009201d0af23$62b09440$2811bcc0$@samsung.com> References: <1434649258-27065-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <5587CA18.6050101@arm.com> <5587D398.8040002@linaro.org> <558920F7.9090301@arm.com> <558956E4.2050700@linaro.org> <01b901d0ae78$2bed39a0$83c7ace0$@samsung.com> <558AAA8E.2010403@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <558AAA8E.2010403@linaro.org> Content-language: ru Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: 'Eric Auger' , 'Andre Przywara' , eric.auger@st.com Cc: christoffer.dall@linaro.org, 'Marc Zyngier' , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi! > But personally I would prefer we > check irqchip routing entries have flat mapping, ie gsi = irqchip.pin > since in any case we don't want/expect the userspace to play with that. Why? On x86 userspace perfectly can play with it. We can imagine some very new qemu version in future which has all arch-specific kludges like "direct mapping" removed and relying fully on routing which it sets up from scratch, in the same way as x86 qemu does this. Or we can imagine some new, legacy-free hypervisor implementation. The gsi == irqchip.pin limitation is just what we have now by default, for backwards compatibility. But by design we were never obliged to stick to this. Well, it's just MHO... Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia