From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] xen/arm: Add support for non-pci passthrough Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:45:02 -0700 Message-ID: <54109C2E.3050608@linaro.org> References: <1406818852-31856-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1410273261.8217.212.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <540F563D.5080202@linaro.org> <1410343891.8217.291.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 1XRmt9-0003ex-9J for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:45:09 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id o8so20289876qcw.3 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:45:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1410343891.8217.291.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, tim@xen.org, Christoffer Dall , stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Andrii Tseglytskyi List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Ian, On 10/09/14 03:11, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> My suspicion is that regular folks won't really be using passthrough >>> until it is via PCI and that in the meantime this functionality is only >>> going to be used by e.g. people building embedded system and superkeen >>> early adopters both of whom know what they are doing and can tolerate >>> some hacks etc to get things working (and I think that's fine, it's >>> still a worthwhile set of things to get into 4.5 and those folks are >>> worth supporting). >>> >>> I'm also worried that we may be committing ourselves to a libxl API >>> already without really working through all the issues (e.g. other >>> properties). >>> >>> Given that I wonder if we wouldn't be better off for 4.5 supporting >>> something much simpler at the toolstack level, namely allowing users to >>> use iomem= and irq= in their domain config to map platform devices >>> through (already works with your series today?) >> >> This would need a bit a plumbing for irq part to allow the user choosing >> the VIRQ (like Arianna did for MMIO range). > > Is it required, or can we just number them from IRQ32 onwards? The current code is actually numbering from IRQ32 onwards. I was mostly thinking of the Andrii use case. Shall we handle it for Xen 4.5? Regards, -- Julien Grall