From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [RFC 06/19] xen/arm: Implement hypercall PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:55:18 -0500 Message-ID: <53F27646.5090609@linaro.org> References: <1402935486-29136-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1402935486-29136-7-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <53A2CBE1.1020403@linaro.org> <1404386851.17859.11.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53B54659.9090809@linaro.org> <1404391984.19893.5.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53C5260C.4010803@linaro.org> <1405429423.9794.32.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XJUtg-0006pA-Af for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 21:55:24 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id uq10so8704606igb.17 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:55:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrii Tseglytskyi , Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel , Tim Deegan , Stefano Stabellini , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 18/08/14 14:20, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote: > Hi All, Hello, > Could someone answer - what is the future of this patch series? Are > you going to post patches as non RFC ? I've sent a v2 a couple of weeks ago: https://patches.linaro.org/34666/ > Will it be merged to Xen 4.5 ? I hope so. If I can't get the whole series in Xen 4.5, I will at least try to get the interrupt assignment in it. > I'm asking because it is *very useful* for development we have in > GlobalLogic. In our current state we need to route some HW irqs to > domainU (Android) and we need them 1 to 1. The new approach allocate dynamically the virtual IRQ number. I chose this solution because otherwise Xen is allocating memory which is never used. You could hack this patch to support 1:1 (see vgic_allocate_virq and vgic_free_virq). OOI, why do you need Virtual IRQ == Physical IRQ? > For now we use similar patch series - > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-07/msg01146.html but > looks like it will not be merged IIRC, there was few comments in the v2 and no v3 has been sent after. Regards, -- Julien Grall