Hi Shannon,
On 23/06/16 15:34, Shannon Zhao wrote:
On 2016年06月23日 21:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org>
Add a configuration option for ARM DomU so that user can deicde to use
ACPI or not. This option is defaultly false.
Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org>
---
tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c | 3 +++
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 1 +
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 4 ++++
xen/include/public/arch-arm.h | 1 +
4 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
index 8f15d9b..cc5a717 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
@@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_prepare_config(libxl__gc *gc,
return ERROR_FAIL;
}
+ xc_config->acpi = libxl_defbool_val(d_config->b_info.arch_arm.acpi)
+ ? true : false;
+
return 0;
}
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index ef614be..426b868 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -560,6 +560,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
("arch_arm", Struct(None, [("gic_version", libxl_gic_version),
+ ("acpi", libxl_defbool),
])),
], dir=DIR_IN
diff --git a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
index 6459eec..0634ffa 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
@@ -2506,6 +2506,10 @@ skip_usbdev:
}
}
+ if (xlu_cfg_get_defbool(config, "acpi", &b_info->arch_arm.acpi, 0)) {
+ libxl_defbool_set(&b_info->arch_arm.acpi, 0);
+ }
We cannot share the existing code to parse the acpi paramter because
that is saved in b_info->u.hvm.acpi, right?
Yes.
It's a pity. I wonder if we
could refactor the existing code so that we can actually share the acpi
parameter between x86 and arm.
I have no idea about this since I'm not familiar with this. But is there
any downsides of current way? Because for x86, it will use
b_info->u.hvm.acpi and for ARM it will use b_info->arch_arm.acpi. I
think they don't conflict even though we store it at two places.
Yes, there is a downside. Toolstack, such as libvirt, would need to
have separate code for x86 and ARM in order to enable/disable ACPI.
I would introduce a new generic acpi parameters, deprecate
b_info->u.hvm.acpi. Ian, Stefano, Wei, any opinions?
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
