From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: Design doc of adding ACPI support for arm64 on Xen - version 2 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:52:32 -0400 Message-ID: <55CA1A40.80408@oracle.com> References: <55C413D5.7000709@huawei.com> <1439302773.9747.266.camel@citrix.com> <1439302906.9747.268.camel@citrix.com> <55CA14C5.4090805@oracle.com> <1439307342.9747.285.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1439307342.9747.285.camel@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: Ian Campbell , Shannon Zhao , xen-devel , Jan Beulich , Stefano Stabellini , Julien Grall , Parth Dixit , Christoffer Dall , Shannon Zhao , Roger Pau Monne Cc: Hangaohuai , "Huangpeng (Peter)" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/11/2015 11:35 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 11:29 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 08/11/2015 10:21 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 15:19 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 10:11 +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>>> This document is going to explain the design details of Xen booting >>>>> with >>>>> ACPI on ARM. Maybe parts of it may not be appropriate. Any comments >>>>> are >>>>> welcome. >>>> Some small subsets of this seem like they might overlap with what >>>> will be >>>> required for PVH on x86 (a new x86 guest mode not dissimilar to the >>>> sole >>>> ARM guest mode). If so then it would be preferable IMHO if PVH x86 >>>> could >>>> use the same interfaces. >>>> >>>> I've trimmed the quotes to just those bits and CCd some of the PVH >>>> people >>>> (Boris and Roger[0]) in case they have any thoughts. >>>> >>>> Actually, having done the trimming there is only one such bit: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> 4. Map MMIO regions >>>>> ------------------- >>>>> Register a bus_notifier for platform and amba bus in Linux. >>> Previously PCI was included in this scheme, which is why I thought of >>> PVH, >>> having missed that PCI wasn't mentioned here now. >>> >>> Is it handled some other way now or is that just an accidental >>> omission? >> PCI already has a bus notifier which is probably why it's not explicitly >> called out here. > Right, but I was more specifically thinking of the bit which followed > regarding the use of the notifier to map the MMIO, which is the more > important bit. This notifier calls PHYSDEVOP_pci_device_add and as far as I can tell MMIO is mapped there (for IOMMU, which IIUIC is the main issue here). -boris > >>>>> Add a new >>>>> XENMAPSPACE "XENMAPSPACE_dev_mmio". Within the register, check if >>>>> the >>>>> device is newly added, then call hypercall XENMEM_add_to_physmap to >>>>> map >>>>> the mmio regions. >>>> Ian. >>>> >>>> [0] Roger is away for a week or so, but I'm expect feedback to be of >>>> the >>>> "we could use one extra field" type rather than "this needs to be >>>> done >>>> some >>>> totally different way for x86/PVH" (in which case we wouldn't want to >>>> share >>>> the interface anyway I suppose) so need to block on awaiting that >>>> feedback. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel