Re: [STRAWMAN PATCH] KVM: PPC: Add ioctl to specify interrupt controller architecture to emulate

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 03/14/2013 05:44:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 14.03.2013, at 23:02, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:15:35PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 03/13/2013 08:26:20 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >
> >>> I arbitrarily
> >>> assigned 0x58494353 for KVM_CAP_IRQ_XICS as the args[0] value to
> >>> indicate XICS.
> >>
> >> Why is it called KVM_CAP_<whatever> if it's not a capability?
> >
> > Because it's associated with a capability.  I'm not wedded to the  
> name.
> >
> >>> I think it would be better if we don't have to get a
> >>> new capability number assigned every time we want to add a new  
> type of
> >>> interrupt controller.
> >>
> >> How often does it really happen?  If a simple enumeration is good
> >> enough for identifying the main IRQ controller device type, it
> >> should be good enough for identifying the vcpu irq arch.
> >
> > Whatever.  I really don't care at this point, I'm just getting
> > extremely tired of the bikeshedding.  If you don't like it, propose
> > something.
> 
> So far most comments I've seen haven't been bikeshedding, but each  
> and every one got us closer to something that we can hopefully rely  
> on for the next few years.
> 
> However, I agree. Scott, you seem to have a pretty good picture by  
> now on how this should look like. Could you please take this patch as  
> a basis, make each controller type its own CAP and have the  
> enable_cap pass a token (fd) to the interrupt controller the CPU  
> should get connected to? I think we're getting very close to having  
> something that looks gorgeous.

Sure.

-Scott