From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: p.fedin@samsung.com (Pavel Fedin) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:38:44 +0300 Subject: IRQFD support with GICv3 ITS (WAS: RE: [PATCH 00/13] arm64: KVM: GICv3 ITS emulation) In-Reply-To: <557842A0.9070503@linaro.org> References: <042601d0a357$d3cec4d0$7b6c4e70$@samsung.com> <557842A0.9070503@linaro.org> Message-ID: <05db01d0a393$895bf710$9c13e530$@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello! > KVM GSI routing, even if only used for MSI routing then mandates to > build entries for non MSI IRQs, using irqchip routing entries. Then you > draw the irqchip.c kvm_irq_routing_table > chip[KVM_NR_IRQCHIPS][KVM_IRQCHIP_NUM_PINS] static allocation issue. Sorry for this add-on, needed time to look at the code. Actually, if we don't use this code at all, and implement our own kvm_set_irq_routing() and kvm_free_irq_routing(), we don't have to bother about all these limitations. The simplest thing to do there would be to store GSI number in struct its_itte. In this case raising an MSI by GSI would not differ from what i currently do. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Fedin Subject: RE: IRQFD support with GICv3 ITS (WAS: RE: [PATCH 00/13] arm64: KVM: GICv3 ITS emulation) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:38:44 +0300 Message-ID: <05db01d0a393$895bf710$9c13e530$@samsung.com> References: <042601d0a357$d3cec4d0$7b6c4e70$@samsung.com> <557842A0.9070503@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6965327C for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jC6RhxN0E9rt for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com (mailout3.w1.samsung.com [210.118.77.13]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9583553266 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:28:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eucpsbgm1.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.244]) by mailout3.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0NPQ001ODJGLGRC0@mailout3.w1.samsung.com> for kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:38:45 +0100 (BST) In-reply-to: <557842A0.9070503@linaro.org> Content-language: ru List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: 'Eric Auger' , 'Marc Zyngier' , 'Andre Przywara' , christoffer.dall@linaro.org Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hello! > KVM GSI routing, even if only used for MSI routing then mandates to > build entries for non MSI IRQs, using irqchip routing entries. Then you > draw the irqchip.c kvm_irq_routing_table > chip[KVM_NR_IRQCHIPS][KVM_IRQCHIP_NUM_PINS] static allocation issue. Sorry for this add-on, needed time to look at the code. Actually, if we don't use this code at all, and implement our own kvm_set_irq_routing() and kvm_free_irq_routing(), we don't have to bother about all these limitations. The simplest thing to do there would be to store GSI number in struct its_itte. In this case raising an MSI by GSI would not differ from what i currently do. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia