From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manish Jaggi Subject: Re: PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM - Draft 2. Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:42:04 +0530 Message-ID: <55BB9044.2010407@caviumnetworks.com> References: <55903F12.7010908@caviumnetworks.com> <55911E66.2040009@citrix.com> <5598C6CD.2040207@caviumnetworks.com> <1436173886.25646.24.camel@citrix.com> <559A532F.50305@caviumnetworks.com> <1436178036.25646.28.camel@citrix.com> <55B89ED5.4040904@caviumnetworks.com> <1438250078.11600.272.camel@citrix.com> <55BA1DB5.7090102@caviumnetworks.com> <1438267154.11600.357.camel@citrix.com> <55BB27DF.2090509@caviumnetworks.com> <1438329920.30740.14.camel@citrix.com> <55BB56E4.2030700@caviumnetworks.com> <1438341549.30740.63.camel@citrix.com> <55BB6F13.4080606@caviumnetworks.com> <55BB712B.1060402@citrix.com> <55BB8750.5000707@caviumnetworks.com> <55BB8C9F.3070605@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55BB8C9F.3070605@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 Cc: Prasun Kapoor , "Kumar, Vijaya" , Stefano Stabellini , "Kulkarni, Ganapatrao" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 31/07/15 8:26 pm, Julien Grall wrote: > On 31/07/15 15:33, Manish Jaggi wrote: >> Hi Julien, >> >> On 31/07/15 6:29 pm, Julien Grall wrote: >>> Hi Manish, >>> >>> On 31/07/15 13:50, Manish Jaggi wrote: >>>> Ok, i will implement the same from pciback to toolstack. I am not sure >>>> about the complexity but will give it a try. >>>> With this xen-pciback will not create the vdev-X entry at all. >>> Can you send a new draft before continuing to implement PCI support in >>> Xen? >> I am working on the Draft 3 and addressing comments in draft 2. I am >> doing a feasibility of the stuff I put in draft3. > Well, I don't think that anything we say within this thread was > impossible to do. > >>> As long as we are not agree about it, >> I thought I was trying to discuss the same. If you have any point please >> raise it. > What I meant is, this is a 40-messages thread with lots of discussions > on it. > > A new draft containing a summary on what was said would benefits > everyone and help us to get on a design that we think is good. > >>> you loose your time trying to >>> implement something that can drastically change in the next revision. >> I am only putting the stuff in the Draft3 which *can* be implemented later. > But nothing prevent someone in the discussion on Draft3 to say this is > wrong and it has to be done in a different way. > > Usually the time between two draft should be pretty short in order to > get sane base for discussion. For now, we are talking about small > portion of design and speculating/trying to remember what was agreed on > other sub-thread. ok will send draft 3 with the points on this topic as under discussion. Is that fine? > > Regards, >