Re: Merging PCI pass-through code

[Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

On 3/6/07 17:52, "Guy Zana" <guy@neocleus.com> wrote:

> Since both Neocleus' solution & Intel's solution have overlapping
> implementations, we should determine what should stays and what goes.
> There is a question on how should we do the merge?
>  
I like the idea of a separate tree, just for the short term, as a shared
workspace for merging and development and bug fixing. I can arrange to
create a new repo called xen-hvm-directio.hg (or a better name if you can
think of one)? From the list of points below it sounds like both sets of
patches need some work, quite apart from the required merging. Would this
method of development suit everyone?

 -- Keir
> 
> Here are a number of issues that we should address:
>  
> 1. We should really create a separate tree and have the merging done outside
> of the main unstable tree.
> 2. Neocleus will use your configuration interface to assign pci devices.
> 3.1 The lpci library - I think it is best to merge Intel's code with what we
> have in our implementation of libpci, and you can add your functions to our
> library.
> 3.2 Your implementation doesn't read/write to the real PCI config space, I'm
> not sure that all devices would like that :)
> 4. Pass-through initialization should be done regardless of an iommu present.
> 5. What type of interrupt handling is the way to go? I can't compare the
> polarity-change with your method since I don't have an IOMMU machine...
> 6. Does the PIO/MMIO access functions in qemu-dm (Neocleus') are needed? (It's
> good for debugging)
> 7. The 1:1 mapping and specific-iommu code can be merged separately.
>  



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2392 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel