From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [kvmarm] [PATCH v2 08/10] ARM: KVM: VGIC initialisation code Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:28:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20121002192806.GC20411@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20121001091244.49503.96318.stgit@ubuntu> <20121001091426.49503.94722.stgit@ubuntu> <20121002092412.GB8847@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoffer Dall , Marc Zyngier , "" , "" , "" To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:63635 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751650Ab2JBT3G (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:29:06 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 07:31:43PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > We probably want to be passing in the "base of the cpu-internal > peripherals", rather than "base of the GIC" specifically. For the > A15 these are the same thing, but that's not inherent [compare the > A9 which has more devices at fixed offsets from a configurable > base address]. If you do that, userspace will need a way to probe the emulated CPU so that is knows exactly which set of peripherals there are and which ones it needs to emulate. This feels pretty nasty, given that the vgic is handled more or less completely by the kernel-side of things. Will