From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= Subject: Re: PCI Passthrough ARM Design : Draft1 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:05:19 +0200 Message-ID: <55794F4F.5070000@citrix.com> References: <557549D7.5090407@caviumnetworks.com> <1433940302.30003.75.camel@citrix.com> <55788E1C.6080307@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55788E1C.6080307@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 , Manish Jaggi Cc: Vijay Kilari , Prasun Kapoor , "Kumar, Vijaya" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini , "Kulkarni, Ganapatrao" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org El 10/06/15 a les 21.21, Julien Grall ha escrit: >> If there is a reason for this restriction/trade off then it should be >> spelled out as part of the design document, as should other such design >> decisions (which would include explaining where this differs from how >> things work for x86 why they must differ). > > On x86, for HVM the MMIO mapping is done by QEMU. I know that Roger is > working on PCI passthrough for PVH. PVH is very similar to ARM guest and > I expect to see a similar needs for MMIO mapping. It would be good if we > can come up with a common interface. I've kind of left that apart in favour of the new boot ABI that we are currently discussing, but IIRC the plan was to use XENMEM_add_to_physmap_range by adding a new phys_map_space and the physical MMIO pages would be specified in the idxs field. Roger.