From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shannon Zhao Subject: Re: Design doc of adding ACPI support for arm64 on Xen - version 2 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:47:56 +0800 Message-ID: <55CAB3DC.1040001@huawei.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> <55CA1A40.80408@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55CA1A40.80408@oracle.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: Boris Ostrovsky , Ian Campbell , 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 2015/8/11 23:52, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > 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). Right, at this moment we only add platform and amba bus bus_notifier. The PCI device can reuse existing bus_notifier. -- Shannon