From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/24] xen/arm: Implement hypercall
	PHYSDEVOP_{, un}map_pirq
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:37:35 +0000
Message-ID: <54F718AF.7010104@linaro.org>
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>
	<1424707341.27930.189.camel@citrix.com>
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.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1YTAR6-0007j9-LD
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:38:08 +0000
Received: by wesp10 with SMTP id p10so44569563wes.12
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Wed, 04 Mar 2015 06:38:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1424707341.27930.189.camel@citrix.com>
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: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi,

On 23/02/15 16:02, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 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...

I looked to the interface of XENDOMCTL_bind_pt_irq and I'm not sure
about the meaning of machine_irq and isa_irq.

AFAIU the code:
	machine_irq => guest PIRQ
	isa_irq => host IRQ

am I right?

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall