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