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