Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 11/17] ARM: XEN: Move xen_early_init() before efi_init()

2016-03-29 Thread Will Deacon
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:54:09PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > are you OK with this patch? Nothing against it, but the only arm64 bit is: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index 450987d..6cf5051 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/a

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 12/17] ARM64: ACPI: Check if it runs on Xen to enable or disable ACPI

2016-03-29 Thread Will Deacon
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:44:31PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > When it's a Xen domain0 booting with ACPI, it will supply a /chosen and > a /hypervisor node in DT. So check if it needs to enable ACPI. > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini > Acked-by: Hanjun Guo > ---

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Xen on ARM and ARM64: update MAINTAINERS info

2016-04-01 Thread Will Deacon
; F: arch/arm/xen/ > F: arch/arm/include/asm/xen/ > > XEN HYPERVISOR ARM64 > -M: Stefano Stabellini > +M: Stefano Stabellini > L: xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org (moderated for non-subscribers) > -S: Supported > +S: Maintained > F:

Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the arm64 tree

2016-04-26 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:00:41PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > between commit: > > 3194ac6e66cc ("arm64: Move unflatten_device_tree() call earlier.") > > from the arm64 tree a

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv6 00/11] CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL for arm64

2017-01-04 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 03:25:53PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 01/03/2017 02:56 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > On 01/03/2017 09:21 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> Happy New Year! > >> > >> This is a very minor rebase from v5. It only moves a few headers around. > >> I think this series should be

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv6 00/11] CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL for arm64

2017-01-10 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:30:50PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 01/04/2017 03:44 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 03:25:53PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> On 01/03/2017 02:56 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >>> On 01/03/2017 09:21 AM, Laura

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv7 00/11] CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL for arm64

2017-01-12 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:35:39PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote: > This is v7 of the patches to add CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL for arm64. This is > a simple reordering of patches from v6 per request of Will Deacon for ease > of merging support for arm which depends on this series. > > L

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v11 4/5] arm64: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops

2015-11-17 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:11:38PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING on ARM64. > > Necessary duplication of paravirt.h and paravirt.c with ARM. > > > > The only paravirt interface supported is

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v11 4/5] arm64: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops

2015-11-17 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:34:36PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 17/11/15 17:29, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:11:38PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >>> Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and PAR

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-12 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:40:12AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:25:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:27:11AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > 2) the changelog _completely_ fails to explain the sync 0x11 and sync > > > 0x12 semantics nor

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-13 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:45:14PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > >The issue I have with the SYNC description in the text above is that it > >describes the single CPU (program order) and the dual-CPU (confusingly > >named global order) cases, but then doesn't generalise any further. That > >means

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-14 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > On 01/13/2016 12:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:02:35AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > >>I ask HW team about it but I have a question - has it any relationship with > >>replacing MIPS SYNC with light

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-14 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:26:16PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > On 01/13/2016 02:45 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >> > >I don't think the address dependency is enough on its own. By that > >reasoning, the following variant (WRC+addr+addr) would work too: > > &g

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-15 Thread Will Deacon
Paul, On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:20:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:24:34PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > It is not so simple, I mean "local ordering for address and data > > dependencies". Local ordering is NOT enough. It happens that current > > MIPS R6 doesn

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-15 Thread Will Deacon
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > >>On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >>> > > >>>The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data de

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-25 Thread Will Deacon
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more >

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-25 Thread Will Deacon
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > And the stuff

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-25 Thread Will Deacon
ity: > The transitivity of full smp_mb() barriers is global, but that > of smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() chains is local. This > commit therefore introduces the notion of local transitivity and > gives an example. > > Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-26 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:24:02AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Yeah, this goes under the header: memory-barriers.txt is _NOT_ a > > specification (I seem to keep repeating this). > > Do we want this ? > > --- > Documentati

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-26 Thread Will Deacon
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-26 Thread Will Deacon
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > "" &g

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] documentation: Add disclaimer

2016-01-27 Thread Will Deacon
ocumentation/memory-barriers.txt | 18 +- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Acked-by: Will Deacon Will ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-27 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:37:33PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > PPC WRCnf+addrs > > > "" > > > { > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

2016-01-27 Thread Will Deacon
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +, Will Deacon wrote: > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] arm/arm64: Detect Xen support earlier

2015-02-25 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:22:33PM +, Julien Grall wrote: > Hello, > > Ping? Any comments from ARM's maintainers on theses patches (at least #2)? I couldn't care less :) The arm64 part is boring in the good sense of the word. Will ___ Xen-devel m

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] arm/arm64: Detect Xen support earlier

2015-02-25 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:40:40PM +, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 16:34 +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:22:33PM +, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Ping? Any comments from ARM's maintainers on

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] KVM: arm64: add workaround for Cortex-A57 erratum #852523

2015-09-14 Thread Will Deacon
-ordering our restoration of the AArch32 register aliases so that they happen before the AArch64 system registers. Ensuring that the registers are restored in this order guarantees that they will be correctly synchronised by the core. Cc: Cc: Marc Zyngier Signed-off-by: Will Deacon --- arch/arm64

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] KVM: arm64: add workaround for Cortex-A57 erratum #852523

2015-09-14 Thread Will Deacon
Hi Ian, On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:36:28PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 16:06 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > When restoring the system register state for an AArch32 guest at EL2, > > writes to DACR32_EL2 may not be correctly synchronised by Cortex-A57, > &

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] KVM: arm64: add workaround for Cortex-A57 erratum #852523

2015-09-14 Thread Will Deacon
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:46:28PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 14/09/15 16:06, Will Deacon wrote: > > When restoring the system register state for an AArch32 guest at EL2, > > writes to DACR32_EL2 may not be correctly synchronised by Cortex-A57, > > which can lead to

Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the arm-soc tree

2014-12-08 Thread Will Deacon
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 07:49:08AM +, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/include/asm/dma-mapping.h between commits a3a60f81ee6f > ("dma-mapping: replace set_arch_dma_coherent_ops with > arch_setup_dma_ops") and 4bb257