On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Pavel Fedin <p.fe...@samsung.com> wrote:
> Introduce global kvm_arm_msi_use_devid flag and pass device IDs in
> kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route(). Device IDs are required by the ITS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Fedin <p.fe...@samsung.com>
> ---
> target-arm/kvm.c | 6 ++++++
> target-arm/kvm_arm.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/kvm.c b/target-arm/kvm.c
> index 79ef4c6..0e46930 100644
> --- a/target-arm/kvm.c
> +++ b/target-arm/kvm.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include "cpu.h"
> #include "internals.h"
> #include "hw/arm/arm.h"
> +#include "hw/pci/pci.h"
> #include "exec/memattrs.h"
>
> const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_arch_required_capabilities[] = {
> @@ -30,6 +31,7 @@ const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_arch_required_capabilities[] = {
> };
>
> static bool cap_has_mp_state;
> +bool kvm_arm_msi_use_devid;
>
> int kvm_arm_vcpu_init(CPUState *cs)
> {
> @@ -607,6 +609,10 @@ int kvm_arm_vgic_probe(void)
> int kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route(struct kvm_irq_routing_entry *route,
> uint64_t address, uint32_t data, PCIDevice *dev)
> {
> + if (kvm_arm_msi_use_devid) {
> + route->flags = KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID;
I think we should OR in this flag (it doesn't make any
difference right now since all the callers to this function
set the flags to 0 before the call, but conceptually I think it
makes more sense).
> + route->u.msi.devid = pci_requester_id(dev);
> + }
Is there anything that would go wrong if we just always set
the u.msi.devid and the VALID_DEVID flag? (ie do we need the
kvm_arm_msi_use_devid bool?)
> return 0;
> }
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/kvm_arm.h b/target-arm/kvm_arm.h
> index 0ec221b..181ff37 100644
> --- a/target-arm/kvm_arm.h
> +++ b/target-arm/kvm_arm.h
> @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ bool write_kvmstate_to_list(ARMCPU *cpu);
> void kvm_arm_reset_vcpu(ARMCPU *cpu);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> +
> +extern bool kvm_arm_msi_use_devid;
> +
> /**
> * kvm_arm_create_scratch_host_vcpu:
> * @cpus_to_try: array of QEMU_KVM_ARM_TARGET_* values (terminated with
> --
> 2.4.4
>
thanks
-- PMM
