From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 09/10] xen/arm: make domain_max_vcpus return value from vgic_ops Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:39:12 +0100 Message-ID: <5571D0B0.30607@citrix.com> References: <1433163388-16970-1-git-send-email-cbz@baozis.org> <1433163388-16970-10-git-send-email-cbz@baozis.org> <1433521584.7108.350.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0uer-00080x-UW for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:39:50 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1433521584.7108.350.camel@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: Ian Campbell , Chen Baozi Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Chen Baozi List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/06/15 17:26, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 20:56 +0800, Chen Baozi wrote: >> [...] >> +#define GICV2_MAX_CPUS 8 > > This and GICV3_MAX_CPUS don't seem very worthwhile, unless there are to > be other uses of them. > > In fact, GICV3_MAX_CPUS is really MAX_VIRT_CPUS, through it's > association with the affinity mapping, i.e. if one changes so would the > other, in lockstep. So I think you should just use that for v3 and > hardcode 8 inline for v2 (since it cannot change). Technically the vGICv3 driver is supporting 4096 CPUs and the restriction is only because of other part of the Xen. This restriction may be removed by passing AFF1 and the target directly to the vgic_send_sgi as you suggested ealier. Regards, -- Julien Grall