>>> On 03.05.17 at 12:22, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > > On 02/05/17 16:23, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Bhupinder, >> >> On 02/05/17 16:20, Bhupinder Thakur wrote: >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>>>> @@ -631,6 +632,9 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d, >>>>> unsigned int domcr_flags, >>>>> if ( (rc = domain_vtimer_init(d, config)) != 0 ) >>>>> goto fail; >>>>> >>>>> + if ( domcr_flags & DOMCRF_vuart ) >>>>> + if ( (rc = domain_vpl011_init(d, config)) != 0 ) >>>>> + goto fail; >>>>> update_domain_wallclock_time(d); >>>> >>> I am planning to remove the usage of domain creation flag to check >>> whether vuart is enabled/disabled. Please see my next comment. With >>> that change, domain_vpl011_init() will be called always. The >>> domain_vpl011_init() will check whether vuart is enabled or disabled >>> in the config structure passed. If vuart is enabled then it will go >>> ahead with vpl011 initialization else it will return without >>> initializing vpl011. >> >> Please don't do that. The arch code decides whether domain_vpl011_init >> not the invert. > > I was wondering whether it would be better to defer the PL011 creation > to a domctl. This could be called after the domain is created with all > the information required (MMIO region, Console PFN...). > > This would also make the migration support more trivial as the we will > not need to know in advance whether a UART is been used. > > Any opinions?
Wasn't that the suggestion given during v1 review? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
