On 11/22/18 7:50 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 15:44 +1100, David Gibson wrote: >> >> Sorry, didn't think of this in my first reply. >> >> 1) Does the hardware ever actually write back to the EAS? I know it >> does for the END, but it's not clear why it would need to for the >> EAS. If not, we don't need the setter. > > Nope, though the PAPR model will via hcalls
Indeed. The H_INT_SET_SOURCE_CONFIG hcall updates the EAT. >> 2) The signatures are a bit odd here. For the setter, a value would >> make sense than a (XiveEAS *), since it's just a word. For the getter >> you could return the EAS value directly rather than using a pointer - >> there's already a valid bit in the EAS so you can construct a value >> with that cleared if the lisn is out of bounds. Yes we could. I think I made it that way to be consistent with the other XIVE internal structures which are bigger : END, NVT There might be other reasons in Pnv. One was to use generic accessors to the guest RAM but I didn't do it finally. Take a look at the Pnv model and we might decide to change the prototype then. I don't think it's a major change. Thanks, C.
