From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53205) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZL8Hb-0000qd-2u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:15:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZL8HW-00045b-04 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:15:23 -0400 Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:57523) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZL8HV-00045K-Rf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:15:17 -0400 Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0NSC006RNN9DGO80@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:15:13 +0100 (BST) From: Pavel Fedin References: <1dbab1e73e54f0fca4d6d05d50986d2dd396f867.1437731107.git.p.fedin@samsung.com> <026901d0cb73$e4708000$ad518000$@samsung.com> <02bd01d0cb81$bace5b10$306b1130$@samsung.com> In-reply-to: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:15:11 +0300 Message-id: <02d401d0cb82$2b4ce0f0$81e6a2d0$@samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-language: ru Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 5/6] Initial implementation of vGICv3 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: 'Peter Maydell' Cc: 'Eric Auger' , 'Marc Zyngier' , 'Shlomo Pongratz' , 'Shlomo Pongratz' , 'QEMU Developers' , 'Christoffer Dall' Hello! > >> I just checked with Marc, and he agreed that all kernels > >> with GICv3 support should support VGIC_CTRL_INIT. What kernel > >> are you running? > > > > v3.18 with backported GICv3 support. It is a choice of our > > HW vendor and their current official kernel. >=20 > Sounds like their backporting is buggy, then. They need to > fix it, I don't think we need to support broken branches > in QEMU. Ok, i will recheck it. So, final conclusion: both conditions should be removed and their code = should be executed unconditionally. Correct ? Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia