From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751934AbdBAKIN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:08:13 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56056 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751406AbdBAKIL (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:08:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 05/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Initialize the emulated EL1
 physical timer
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
References: <1485479100-4966-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
 <1485479100-4966-6-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
 <86wpde83xn.fsf@arm.com> <20170130145816.GC16459@cbox>
 <57b57b31-b8ad-f5c8-a1fc-4cde9a564dd2@arm.com> <20170130190450.GF16459@cbox>
Cc: Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu>, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, andre.przywara@arm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Organization: ARM Ltd
Message-ID: <619cc856-b268-df3b-d064-e511fa54afe0@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:08:01 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Icedove/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170130190450.GF16459@cbox>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 30/01/17 19:04, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:44:20PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:

>> Wventually, we'll have to support an offset-able
>> physical counter to support nested virtualization, but this can come at
>> a later time.
>>
> Why do we need the offset-able physical counter for nested
> virtualization?  I would think for nested virt we just need to support
> respecting how the guest hypervisor programs CNTVOFF?

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, once the guest hypervisor is in control of
its own CNTVOFF, we get everything we need. So let's just ignore this
for the time being, and we should be pretty good for this series.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...