From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752696AbaE0OC5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2014 10:02:57 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:64789 "EHLO mail-lb0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752441AbaE0OCw (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2014 10:02:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 16:02:47 +0200 From: Christoffer Dall To: Jungseok Lee Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, Marc Zyngier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc , steve.capper@linaro.org, sungjinn.chung@samsung.com, Arnd Bergmann , kgene.kim@samsung.com, ilho215.lee@samsung.com Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 7/7] arm64: KVM: Implement 4 levels of translation tables for HYP and stage2 Message-ID: <20140527140247.GK31431@lvm> References: <000001cf6dc8$60eaa170$22bfe450$@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000001cf6dc8$60eaa170$22bfe450$@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:56:00PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote: > This patch adds 4 levels of translation tables implementation for both > HYP and stage2. > > Both symmetric and asymmetric configurations for page size and translation > levels are are validated on Fast Models: > > 1) 4KB + 3 levels guest on 4KB + 4 levels host > 2) 4KB + 4 levels guest on 4KB + 4 levels host > 3) 64KB + 2 levels guest on 4KB + 4 levels host > 4) 4KB + 3 levels guest on 64KB + 2 levels host > 5) 4KB + 4 levels guest on 64KB + 2 levels host > 6) 64KB + 2 levels guest on 64KB + 2 levels host > > Cc: Marc Zyngier > Cc: Christoffer Dall > Signed-off-by: Jungseok Lee > Reviewed-by: Sungjinn Chung > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim I'm going to hold off giving this a final review until we have that previous VTTBR_X patch sorted out. Given the number of open questions in that one, I recommend you factor that patch out of this patch set, get that sorted out first, and then send a new version of this patch set once we have an agreement on the other patch. -Christoffer