From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/24] xen/arm: Implement hypercall
 PHYSDEVOP_{, un}map_pirq
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:02:21 +0000
Message-ID: <1424707341.27930.189.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1421159133-31526-14-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1501281848150.9702@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<54C932BF.5070009@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1501291210490.9702@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<54CA2709.9080409@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1501291233120.9702@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<1424451224.30924.357.camel@citrix.com> <54EB4C98.8020107@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1YPvU0-0000BW-LK
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:03:44 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54EB4C98.8020107@linaro.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 15:51 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 20/02/15 16:53, Ian Campbell wrote:

> > Are we absolutely 100% sure that we will never ever want to map hardware
> > IRQs to guests on ARMs using pirq-type event channels? Because that is
> > what we are essentially ruling out here.
> 
> That would happen if we decide to implement an interrupt controller
> which doesn't support virtualization.

Good point. It's pretty unlikely but not absolutely impossible. So we
should avoid reusing the pirq evtchn type for this. Jan suggested
XENDOMCTL_bind_pt_irq which is looking better and better...

Ian.