On 12 December 2011 17:40, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2011 06:31 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
I think with an in-kernel GIC model you'd only need to be able to set
one of the (256 including internal-to-the-CPU inputs) GIC input lines;
the GIC itself then connects directly to the
On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/12/2011 06:31 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 11 December 2011 23:01, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
Enabling in-kernel irqchips usually means switching worlds. So the
semantics of these particular IRQ inject interface details may change
On 11/12/11 20:07, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 11 December 2011 19:30, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Peter Maydell
peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
Removing
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/12/11 20:07, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 11 December 2011 19:30, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/11/2011 12:24 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Userspace can inject IRQs and FIQs through the KVM_IRQ_LINE VM ioctl.
This ioctl is used since the sematics are in fact two lines that can be
either raised or lowered on the VCPU
On 12/12/2011 04:38 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Why don't they match? The assignment of lines to actual pins differs,
but essentially it's the same thing (otherwise we'd use a different ioctl).
because there is no notion of gsi and irq_source_id on ARM.
gsi = number of irq line, just
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2011 04:38 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Why don't they match? The assignment of lines to actual pins differs,
but essentially it's the same thing (otherwise we'd use a different ioctl).
because there is no
On 12/12/2011 05:11 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
If I should re-use the existing one, should I simply move it outside
of __KVM_HAVE_IOAPIC?
Protect it with __KVM_HAVE_IRQ_LINE so we don't leak unused tracepoints
for other archs.
ok. I used to be scared of touching your arch
On 11 December 2011 23:01, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
Enabling in-kernel irqchips usually means switching worlds. So the
semantics of these particular IRQ inject interface details may change
without breaking anything.
However, things might look different if there will be a need to
On 12/12/2011 06:31 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 11 December 2011 23:01, Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
Enabling in-kernel irqchips usually means switching worlds. So the
semantics of these particular IRQ inject interface details may change
without breaking anything.
However, things
On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 11 December 2011 19:30, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Peter Maydell
peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
Removing the mask would be wrong since the irq field
On 11 December 2011 20:07, Christoffer Dall
christofferd...@christofferdall.dk wrote:
Well, if it was just irq 1, then I hear you, but it would be (irq
cpu_idx) 1 which I don't think is more clear.
Er, what? The fields are [31..1] CPU index and [0] irqtype,
right? So what you have now is:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 11 December 2011 20:07, Christoffer Dall
christofferd...@christofferdall.dk wrote:
Well, if it was just irq 1, then I hear you, but it would be (irq
cpu_idx) 1 which I don't think is more clear.
Er, what?
On 11 December 2011 21:36, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 11 December 2011 20:07, Christoffer Dall
christofferd...@christofferdall.dk wrote:
Well, if it was just irq 1, then I hear you,
On 11 December 2011 22:12, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
(Actually what would be clearest would be if the ioctl took the
(interrupt-target, interrupt-line-for-that-target, value-of-line)
tuple as three separate values rather than encoding two of them into
a single integer, but
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 11 December 2011 22:12, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
(Actually what would be clearest would be if the ioctl took the
(interrupt-target, interrupt-line-for-that-target, value-of-line)
tuple as
On 2011-12-11 23:53, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 11 December 2011 22:12, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
(Actually what would be clearest would be if the ioctl took the
(interrupt-target,
On 11.12.2011, at 20:48, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 11 December 2011 19:30, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Peter Maydell
peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
Removing the mask would be wrong since the irq field here
18 matches
Mail list logo
