>>> On 23.02.15 at 16:53, <julien.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On 23/02/15 15:28, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 09:33 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.02.15 at 17:53, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> Jan, do you have any feeling for how this is going to play out on x86
>>>> with the vapic stuff?
>>>
>>> The vapic logic shouldn't require any physdevop involvement, so if
>>> I read right what you propose (not having such a requirement /
>>> connection on ARM) either, I agree that a new domctl should be all
>>> that's needed (if XEN_DOMCTL_{,un}bind_pt_irq can't be re-used).
>>
>> Actually, I think bind_pt_irq with a new PT_IRQ_TYPE_* would be a good
>> option.
>>
>> An ARM SPI is a bit like an ISA IRQ, but not close enough to reuse IMHO
>> (and the datatype would need widening).
>
> We have to think about MSI and other type too...
Which that domctl already provides for.
> In any case a DOMCTL is not suitable here because a guest kernel may
> need to map/unmap IRQ too (think about ACPI or device passthrough).
But not the physical IRQ I suppose. The virtual counterpart is what
should be used there, and that's what said domctl extablishes.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
