From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: Xen/arm: Virtual ITS command queue handling Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:36:44 +0100 Message-ID: <1432042604.12989.124.camel@citrix.com> References: <1431442942.8263.175.camel@citrix.com> <555239ED.2090400@citrix.com> <1431523416.8263.273.camel@citrix.com> <55535F30.7040903@citrix.com> <1431687548.8943.74.camel@citrix.com> <5555E46F.4010209@citrix.com> <1431694697.8943.119.camel@citrix.com> <5555F383.7030909@citrix.com> <1432037642.12989.106.camel@citrix.com> <555B3A5C.4090502@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <555B3A5C.4090502@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall Cc: Vijay Kilari , Stefano Stabellini , Prasun Kapoor , manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, Julien Grall , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 14:27 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > With the multiple vITS we would have to retrieve the number of vITS. > Maybe by extending the xen_arch_domainconfig? I'm sure we can find a way. The important question is whether we want to go for a N:N vits:pits mapping or 1:N. So far I think we are leaning (slightly?) towards the 1:N model, if we can come up with a satisfactory answer for what to do with global commands. Ian.