On 3/27/25 8:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.03.2025 17:49, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
On 3/26/25 4:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.03.2025 18:36, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
Introduce preinitialization stuff for the RISC-V Advanced Platform-Level
Interrupt Controller (APLIC) in Xen:
- Implementing the APLIC pre-initialization function (`aplic_preinit()`),
ensuring that only one APLIC instance is supported in S mode.
- Initialize APLIC's correspoinding DT node.
- Declaring the DT device match table for APLIC.
- Setting `aplic_info.hw_version` during its declaration.
- Declaring an APLIC device.
Since Microchip originally developed aplic.c [1], an internal discussion
with them led to the decision to use the MIT license instead of the default
GPL-2.0-only.
[1]https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/7cfb4bd4748ca268142497ac5c327d2766fb342d
Signed-off-by: Romain Caritey<romain.cari...@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko<oleksii.kuroc...@gmail.com>
You recall that From: != 1st S-o-b is unusual, and wants some explanation.
IOW it's unclear who the original author of this patch is.
I'm not 100% sure who should be the author. Such patch doesn't exist before but
I took the changes
based on the changes mentioned in commit message as [1].
If you think that the author should be Romain, I am okay with that.
I can't sensibly form an opinion here. This needs settling between him and you.
From your reply I'm not even convinced his S-o-b is legitimately there then.
You may want to use another, less standard tag in such a case (like the
Co-developed-by: that I've seen in use here and there) to still give credit to
him.
I'll have a conversation with Romain and then just re-send the patch.
--- /dev/null
+++ b/xen/arch/riscv/aplic.c
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
+
+/*
+ * xen/arch/riscv/aplic.c
+ *
+ * RISC-V Advanced Platform-Level Interrupt Controller support
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2023-2024 Microchip.
+ * Copyright (c) 2024-2025 Vates
+ */
+
+#include <xen/errno.h>
+#include <xen/init.h>
+#include <xen/types.h>
+
+#include <asm/device.h>
+#include <asm/intc.h>
+
+static struct intc_info aplic_info = {
+ .hw_version = INTC_APLIC
+};
Is this going to be written to (much) post-init? IOW - __read_mostly or
even __ro_after_init?
I think that __read_mostly would be better because intc_info structure in the
future
will contain member "void *private". And in `private` it can be a data which can
be changed.
You mean the pointer can change? Or merely what it points to, i.e. ...
For example, `private` can contain an aplic_priv structure:
struct aplic_priv {
/* number of irqs */
uint32_t nr_irqs;
/* base physical address and size */
paddr_t paddr_start;
paddr_t paddr_end;
uint64_t size;
/* registers */
struct aplic_regs *regs;
/* imsic configuration */
const struct imsic_config *imsic_cfg;
};
and regs from aplic_priv structure can be changed in runtime.
... the contents of such a struct? In this latter case the struct instance
here can still be __ro_after_init as long as the pointer is set from an
__init function.
I meant that the data will be changed. The pointer will be initialized once
in the following way:
static struct intc_info aplic_info = {
.hw_version = INTC_APLIC,
.private = &aplic
};
I will update for both structures __ro_after_init() then.
Thanks for clarification.
~ Oleksii
