>>> On 17.08.17 at 14:35, wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 01:45:54AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 16.08.17 at 23:41, wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:58:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> > On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> >> >> +#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
Hi,
On 17/08/17 13:35, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
I wrote this small test program:
#include
struct test
{
int a[2];
};
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("%d\n", ((struct test){{1,2}}).a[0]);
return 0;
}
It is compiles with gcc --std=c89 without warnings.
Thi
Hi Jan,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 01:45:54AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.08.17 at 23:41, wrote:
> > Hello Jan,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:58:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> >> >> +#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
>>> On 16.08.17 at 23:41, wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:58:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> >> +#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
>> >> +#define __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
>> >> +
>> >> +typedef struct {
>> >> +
Hello Jan,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:58:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> > On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> >> +#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
> >> +#define __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
> >> +
> >> +typedef struct {
> >> +uint32_t a[4];
> >> +} xen_arm_smccc_uid;
>
>
Hi Julien,
On 11.08.17 00:09, Julien Grall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 21:09, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi,
On 10.08.17 21:18, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 10/08/17 18:40, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
On 10.08.17 19:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 10/08/17 16:33, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Julien,
O
Hi Volodymyr,
On 10/08/17 22:09, Julien Grall wrote:
We can stick to XEN-only approach, like XENFEAT_* or "xen,smccc" in DT.
But is this right?
Answering to this question after some thoughts and discussion around.
The generic approach is indeed the best solution, however I am afraid it
will
On 10/08/2017 21:09, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi,
On 10.08.17 21:18, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 10/08/17 18:40, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
On 10.08.17 19:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 10/08/17 16:33, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 09.08.17 13:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
Hi,
On 10.08.17 21:18, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 10/08/17 18:40, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
On 10.08.17 19:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 10/08/17 16:33, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 09.08.17 13:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on
Hi,
On 10/08/17 18:40, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
On 10.08.17 19:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 10/08/17 16:33, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 09.08.17 13:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on the public headers.
On 08/08/17 21:08, Volod
On 10.08.17 19:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 10/08/17 16:33, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 09.08.17 13:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on the public headers.
On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
SMCCC (SMC Call Convention) d
On 10/08/17 16:33, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 09.08.17 13:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on the public headers.
On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
SMCCC (SMC Call Convention) describes how to handle both HVCs and SMCs.
Hi Julien,
On 09.08.17 13:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on the public headers.
On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
SMCCC (SMC Call Convention) describes how to handle both HVCs and SMCs.
SMCCC states that both HVC and SMC are valid c
Hi,
On 10/08/17 08:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.08.17 at 23:39, wrote:
On 09.08.17 14:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.08.17 at 12:10, wrote:
On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
+#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
+#define __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
+
+typedef struct {
+uint3
>>> On 09.08.17 at 23:39, wrote:
> On 09.08.17 14:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.08.17 at 12:10, wrote:
>>> On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
+#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
+#define __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
+
+typedef struct {
+uint32_t a[4]
On 09.08.17 14:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.08.17 at 12:10, wrote:
CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on the public headers.
Please be more specific as to what you expect - the only public
header affected here is ARM-specific.
On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
+#ifndef
>>> On 09.08.17 at 12:10, wrote:
> CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on the public headers.
Please be more specific as to what you expect - the only public
header affected here is ARM-specific.
> On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> +#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_ARCH_ARM_SMC_H__
>> +
Hi Volodymyr,
CC "THE REST" maintainers to get an opinion on the public headers.
On 08/08/17 21:08, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
SMCCC (SMC Call Convention) describes how to handle both HVCs and SMCs.
SMCCC states that both HVC and SMC are valid conduits to call to a different
firmware functions. T
SMCCC (SMC Call Convention) describes how to handle both HVCs and SMCs.
SMCCC states that both HVC and SMC are valid conduits to call to a different
firmware functions. Thus, for example PSCI calls can be made both by
SMC or HVC. Also SMCCC defines function number coding for such calls.
Besides fun
19 matches
Mail list logo
