From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [RFC 09/14] xen/xsm: flask: MSI is PCI specific Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:05:25 +0000 Message-ID: <5326E505.3050507@linaro.org> References: <1394640969-25583-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1394640969-25583-10-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <5321C1D8.6080306@tycho.nsa.gov> <5321C34C.9080803@linaro.org> <1394817948.6065.12.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53234756.3070108@linaro.org> <1395051239.4122.39.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WPWIK-0003eN-K8 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:05:28 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x13so4589684wgg.9 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 05:05:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1395051239.4122.39.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.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: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Daniel De Graaf , tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Ian, On 03/17/2014 10:13 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 18:15 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> On 03/14/2014 05:25 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:40 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> >>>> Right, nr_static_irqs is set to 1024 on ARM. For now every IRQs, are not >>>> higher than this number. >>> >>> This will change before long though. Would HAVE_MSI_IRQS be a better >>> name for this particular arch-configurable? After all PCI without MSI is >>> plausible isn't it? (well, maybe not in the modern world) >> >> Most of PCI passthrough code is relying that MSI is also implemented. >> Futhermore, I think the plan for ARM is to support both PCI and MSI. > > Right, but we might get PCI support first and separately I think? Good question, I though it's better to come with PCI and MSI support at the time. >> That's why I chose HAS_PCI. > > I suppose we can revisit it easily enough if it causes problems. If we implement first PCI, we might need to modify a couple of other place in Xen. I think we can delay HAS_MSI_IRQS and see if we really need it. Regards, -- Julien Grall