Re: [PATCH v1 20/20] libxl/acpi: Build ACPI tables for HVMlite guests

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:33:21AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 06:47 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 01:20:46PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> On 07/08/2016 12:07 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:48:52AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>>> On 07/08/2016 06:55 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +    /* Map page that will hold RSDP */
> >>>>>> +    extent = RSDP_ADDRESS >> ctxt.page_shift;
> >>>>>> +    rc = populate_acpi_pages(dom, &extent, 1, &ctxt);
> >>>>>> +    if (rc) {
> >>>>>> +        LOG(ERROR, "%s: populate_acpi_pages for rsdp failed with %d",
> >>>>>> +            __FUNCTION__, rc);
> >>>>>> +        goto out;
> >>>>>> +    }
> >>>>>> +    config.rsdp = (unsigned long)xc_map_foreign_range(xch, domid,
> >>>>>> +                                                      ctxt.page_size,
> >>>>>> +                                                      PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> >>>>>> +                                                      RSDP_ADDRESS >> ctxt.page_shift);
> >>>>> I think with Anthony's on-going work you should be more flexible for all
> >>>>> you tables.
> >>>> Not sure I understand what you mean here. You want the address
> >>>> (RSDP_ADDRESS) to be a variable as opposed to a macro?
> >>>>
> >>> I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possible interaction between
> >>> Anthony's work and your work.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony's work allows dynamically loading of firmware blobs. If you use
> >>> a fixed address, theoretically it can clash with firmware blobs among
> >>> other things libxc can load. The high address is a safe bet so that
> >>> probably won't happen in practice.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony's work allows loading arbitrary blobs actually. Can you take
> >>> advantage of that mechanism as well? That is, to specify all your tables
> >>> as modules and let libxc handle actually loading them  into guest
> >>> memory.
> >>>
> >>> Does this make sense?
> >>>
> >>> Also CC Anthony here.
> >>
> >> My understanding of Anthony's series is that its goal was to provide an
> >> interface to pass DSDT (and maybe some other tables) from the toolstack
> >> to hvmloader.
> >>
> >> Here we don't have hvmloader, we are loading the tables directly into
> >> guest's memory.
> >>
> > Do you use the same hvm_start_info structure? I don't think that
> > structure is restricted to hvmloader.
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. However, in PVH(v2) case it will be seen next by the guest
> who will expect the tables to already be in memory. I.e. there is no
> intermediate Xen component, such as hvmloader, who can load the blobs.
> 

Maybe you misunderstood. Anthony's work will load the blobs into guest
memory -- all fields in hvm_start_info points to guest physical address
IIRC. Hvmloader might want to relocate them, but that's a different
matter.

> Having said that, I wonder whether we (both x86 and ARM) could use
> Anthony's xc_dom_image.full_acpi_module instead of acpitables_blob that
> Shannon's series added. (even if we can't, I think
> xc_hvm_firmware_module is the right datastructure to store the blob
> since it has both toolstack's virtual and guest's physical addresses).
> 

Yes, that's along the line I'm thinking about.

Wei.

> -boris
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel