| Message ID | 20180315203050.19791-46-andre.przywara@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | New VGIC(-v2) implementation | expand |
>>> On 15.03.18 at 21:30, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: > --- a/xen/common/Makefile > +++ b/xen/common/Makefile > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-y += keyhandler.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kexec.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kimage.o > obj-y += lib.o > +obj-y += list_sort.o Why here rather than in patch 17? And why also for x86? I think you want a promptless Kconfig option that an arch can select if it needs this code, unless or until common code makes use of it. Jan
Hi, On 16/03/18 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 15.03.18 at 21:30, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: >> --- a/xen/common/Makefile >> +++ b/xen/common/Makefile >> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-y += keyhandler.o >> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kexec.o >> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kimage.o >> obj-y += lib.o >> +obj-y += list_sort.o > > Why here rather than in patch 17? And why also for x86? I think you > want a promptless Kconfig option that an arch can select if it needs > this code, unless or until common code makes use of it. Yeah, I had obj-$(CONFIG_NEW_VGIC) before, but Julien disliked it. Promptless Kconfig sounds good to me. Thanks! Andre
>>> On 16.03.18 at 12:10, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: > On 16/03/18 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 15.03.18 at 21:30, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/common/Makefile >>> +++ b/xen/common/Makefile >>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-y += keyhandler.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kexec.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kimage.o >>> obj-y += lib.o >>> +obj-y += list_sort.o >> >> Why here rather than in patch 17? And why also for x86? I think you >> want a promptless Kconfig option that an arch can select if it needs >> this code, unless or until common code makes use of it. > > Yeah, I had obj-$(CONFIG_NEW_VGIC) before, but Julien disliked it. > Promptless Kconfig sounds good to me. And note I'm not asking for a VGIC option, but for a LIST_SORT one. Jan
Hi, On 16/03/18 11:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 16.03.18 at 12:10, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 16/03/18 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 15.03.18 at 21:30, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/common/Makefile >>>> +++ b/xen/common/Makefile >>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-y += keyhandler.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kexec.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kimage.o >>>> obj-y += lib.o >>>> +obj-y += list_sort.o >>> >>> Why here rather than in patch 17? And why also for x86? I think you >>> want a promptless Kconfig option that an arch can select if it needs >>> this code, unless or until common code makes use of it. >> >> Yeah, I had obj-$(CONFIG_NEW_VGIC) before, but Julien disliked it. >> Promptless Kconfig sounds good to me. > > And note I'm not asking for a VGIC option, but for a LIST_SORT one. Yeah, I got that ;-) CONFIG_LIST_SORT or CONFIG_HAS_LIST_SORT? Cheers, Andre.
>>> On 16.03.18 at 16:13, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 16/03/18 11:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 16.03.18 at 12:10, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On 16/03/18 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 15.03.18 at 21:30, <andre.przywara@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/common/Makefile >>>>> +++ b/xen/common/Makefile >>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-y += keyhandler.o >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kexec.o >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kimage.o >>>>> obj-y += lib.o >>>>> +obj-y += list_sort.o >>>> >>>> Why here rather than in patch 17? And why also for x86? I think you >>>> want a promptless Kconfig option that an arch can select if it needs >>>> this code, unless or until common code makes use of it. >>> >>> Yeah, I had obj-$(CONFIG_NEW_VGIC) before, but Julien disliked it. >>> Promptless Kconfig sounds good to me. >> >> And note I'm not asking for a VGIC option, but for a LIST_SORT one. > > Yeah, I got that ;-) > CONFIG_LIST_SORT or CONFIG_HAS_LIST_SORT? The former (or CONFIG_NEEDS_LIST_SORT or CONFIG_WANT_LIST_SORT). Jan
Hi Andre, On 03/15/2018 08:30 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..806826948e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > +obj-y += vgic.o > +obj-y += vgic-v2.o > +obj-y += vgic-mmio.o > +obj-y += vgic-mmio-v2.o > +obj-y += vgic-init.o > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c > index 4b9664f313..342b95be31 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c > @@ -968,6 +968,16 @@ unsigned int vgic_max_vcpus(const struct domain *d) > return min_t(unsigned int, MAX_VIRT_CPUS, vgic_vcpu_limit); > } > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_GICV3 > +void vgic_v3_setup_hw(paddr_t dbase, > + unsigned int nr_rdist_regions, > + const struct rdist_region *regions, > + unsigned int intid_bits) > +{ > + /* Dummy implementation to allow building without actual vGICv3 support. */ > +} > +#endif Why not just avoid selecting HAS_GICV3? Cheers,
Hi, On 20/03/18 03:13, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 03/15/2018 08:30 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000000..806826948e >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile >> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >> +obj-y += vgic.o >> +obj-y += vgic-v2.o >> +obj-y += vgic-mmio.o >> +obj-y += vgic-mmio-v2.o >> +obj-y += vgic-init.o >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c >> index 4b9664f313..342b95be31 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c >> @@ -968,6 +968,16 @@ unsigned int vgic_max_vcpus(const struct domain *d) >> return min_t(unsigned int, MAX_VIRT_CPUS, vgic_vcpu_limit); >> } >> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_GICV3 >> +void vgic_v3_setup_hw(paddr_t dbase, >> + unsigned int nr_rdist_regions, >> + const struct rdist_region *regions, >> + unsigned int intid_bits) >> +{ >> + /* Dummy implementation to allow building without actual vGICv3 >> support. */ >> +} >> +#endif > > Why not just avoid selecting HAS_GICV3? Because "config ARM_64" selects HAS_GICV3, and I didn't dare to touch this. Shouldn't be around for long anyways. Cheers, Andre.
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig index 2782ee6589..310f909768 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -48,7 +48,22 @@ config HAS_GICV3 config HAS_ITS bool prompt "GICv3 ITS MSI controller support" if EXPERT = "y" - depends on HAS_GICV3 + depends on HAS_GICV3 && !NEW_VGIC + +config NEW_VGIC + bool + prompt "Use new VGIC implementation" + ---help--- + + This is an alternative implementation of the ARM GIC interrupt + controller emulation, based on the Linux/KVM VGIC. It has a better + design and fixes many shortcomings of the existing GIC emulation in + Xen. It will eventually replace the existing/old VGIC. + However at the moment it lacks support for Dom0 using the ITS for + using MSIs. + Say Y if you want to help testing this new code or if you experience + problems with the standard emulation. + At the moment this implementation is not security supported. config SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE bool "Emulated SBSA UART console support" diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/Makefile b/xen/arch/arm/Makefile index 41d7366527..a9533b107e 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/Makefile +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Makefile @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ obj-y += domain_build.o obj-y += domctl.o obj-$(EARLY_PRINTK) += early_printk.o obj-y += gic.o -obj-y += gic-vgic.o obj-y += gic-v2.o obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_GICV3) += gic-v3.o obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_ITS) += gic-v3-its.o @@ -47,10 +46,14 @@ obj-y += sysctl.o obj-y += time.o obj-y += traps.o obj-y += vcpreg.o +subdir-$(CONFIG_NEW_VGIC) += vgic +ifneq ($(CONFIG_NEW_VGIC),y) +obj-y += gic-vgic.o obj-y += vgic.o obj-y += vgic-v2.o obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_GICV3) += vgic-v3.o obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_ITS) += vgic-v3-its.o +endif obj-y += vm_event.o obj-y += vtimer.o obj-$(CONFIG_SBSA_VUART_CONSOLE) += vpl011.o diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..806826948e --- /dev/null +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +obj-y += vgic.o +obj-y += vgic-v2.o +obj-y += vgic-mmio.o +obj-y += vgic-mmio-v2.o +obj-y += vgic-init.o diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c index 4b9664f313..342b95be31 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c @@ -968,6 +968,16 @@ unsigned int vgic_max_vcpus(const struct domain *d) return min_t(unsigned int, MAX_VIRT_CPUS, vgic_vcpu_limit); } +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_GICV3 +void vgic_v3_setup_hw(paddr_t dbase, + unsigned int nr_rdist_regions, + const struct rdist_region *regions, + unsigned int intid_bits) +{ + /* Dummy implementation to allow building without actual vGICv3 support. */ +} +#endif + /* * Local variables: * mode: C diff --git a/xen/common/Makefile b/xen/common/Makefile index 3a349f478b..1668e14c4b 100644 --- a/xen/common/Makefile +++ b/xen/common/Makefile @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-y += keyhandler.o obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kexec.o obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kimage.o obj-y += lib.o +obj-y += list_sort.o obj-$(CONFIG_LIVEPATCH) += livepatch.o livepatch_elf.o obj-y += lzo.o obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_MEM_ACCESS) += mem_access.o
Now that we have both the old VGIC prepared to cope with a sibling and the code for the new VGIC in place, lets add a Kconfig option to enable the new code and wire it into the Xen build system. This will add a compile time option to use either the "old" or the "new" VGIC. In the moment this is restricted to a vGIC-v2. To make the build system happy, we provide a temporary dummy implementation of vgic_v3_setup_hw() to allow building for now. Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@linaro.org> --- Changelog v1 ... v2: - add Kconfig help text - use separate Makefile in vgic/ directory - protect compilation without GICV3 support - always include list_sort() in build xen/arch/arm/Kconfig | 17 ++++++++++++++++- xen/arch/arm/Makefile | 5 ++++- xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile | 5 +++++ xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 10 ++++++++++ xen/common/Makefile | 1 + 5 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/vgic/Makefile