Hello! > So let me put it another way. The only way I look into this is when we > have this particular platform fully supported in mainline.
I am sorry for possible misunderstanding. Please give me one more minute to defend myself... So far, we are not putting back timer disable hack. So, i'd like to clarify some things about variant 2. From kernel's point of view, this is not a hack, but pure feature enhancement. The idea is to add KVM API which would allow to emulate system registers, unhandled by KVM, in userspace. Currently KVM just prints error message about unhandled system register access and feeds guest with "illegal instruction" exception. What i actually propose is to add an API which would allow to handle these things in userspace. This will even be architecture-agnostic, and it can be useful for emulating absolutely any future peripherials which could use system register (or coprocessor, on ARM32) interface. The rest of timer-related stuff would be needed to be implemented in userspace, and this would have absolutely nothing to do with kernel. By the way, this would also allow to run under KVM legitimate guests which for some reason expect both timers (are there any? RTOS?) So, what is your final word? Would you consider this improvement? Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
