From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [Draft D] Xen on ARM vITS Handling Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:08:14 +0100 Message-ID: <5570A21E.1080607@citrix.com> References: <1433426053.7108.107.camel@citrix.com> <557090F6.8030808@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <557090F6.8030808@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" Cc: manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Vijay Kilari List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/06/2015 18:55, Julien Grall wrote: > After reading this draft, I think we can avoid to browse the Device > Table and the ITT. As said on the previous paragraph, the pending_irq > structure is linked to an irq_desc. In your proposal, you suggested to > store the its_device in the irq_guest (part of irq_desc). If we make > usage of pending_irq->desc to store the physical descriptor, we can have > a mapping vLPI <=> pLPI. Therefore, this would resolve UI1 and AFAICT, > the memory usage would be the same in Xen of the ITT/Device base solution. BTW, I will suggest a pseudo-code based on your draft tomorrow. It may be easier to understand. -- Julien Grall