Hi,
On 20/06/2023 16:29, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com>
VPCI is disabled on ARM. Make it depend on CONFIG_HAS_VPCI to test the PCI
passthrough support.
While here, remove the comment on the preceding line.
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com>
Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.si...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebr...@amd.com>
---
There are two downstreams [1] [2] that have independently made a version this
change, each with different Signed-off-by's. I simply picked one at random for
the Author: field, and added both Signed-off-by lines. Please let me know if
there are any objections.
downstream->v1:
* change to IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_VPCI) instead of hardcoded to true
* remove the comment on the preceding line
[1]
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/bmarquis/xen-arm-poc/-/commit/27be1729ce8128dbe37275ce7946b2fbd2e5a382
[2]
https://github.com/xen-troops/xen/commit/bf12185e6fb2e31db0d8e6ea9ccd8a02abadec17
---
xen/arch/arm/include/asm/domain.h | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/domain.h
b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/domain.h
index 99e798ffff68..6e016b00bae1 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/domain.h
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/domain.h
@@ -298,8 +298,7 @@ static inline void arch_vcpu_block(struct vcpu *v) {}
#define arch_vm_assist_valid_mask(d) (1UL << VMASST_TYPE_runstate_update_flag)
-/* vPCI is not available on Arm */
-#define has_vpci(d) ({ (void)(d); false; })
+#define has_vpci(d) ({ (void)(d); IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_VPCI); })
This will enable vPCI for all the domains. However, in the cover letter,
you seemed to suggest that guest support is not there. So shouldn't this
be "is_harware_domain(d)"? Or d->arch.has_vcpi?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
