On 01.08.2025 21:30, dm...@proton.me wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 08:02:56AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 31.07.2025 22:55, dm...@proton.me wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 04:57:44PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 24.06.2025 05:56, dm...@proton.me wrote: >>>>> @@ -458,16 +459,16 @@ struct arch_domain >>>>> } __cacheline_aligned; >>>>> >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HVM >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_LAPIC XEN_X86_EMU_LAPIC >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_HPET XEN_X86_EMU_HPET >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_PM XEN_X86_EMU_PM >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_RTC XEN_X86_EMU_RTC >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_IOAPIC XEN_X86_EMU_IOAPIC >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_PIC XEN_X86_EMU_PIC >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_VGA XEN_X86_EMU_VGA >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_IOMMU XEN_X86_EMU_IOMMU >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ XEN_X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ >>>>> -#define X86_EMU_VPCI XEN_X86_EMU_VPCI >>>> >>>> The old code deliberately used values from the public interface. >>> >>> In next version I am building, I moved all of XEN_X86_EMU_XXX definitions as >>> is to a new public header under include/public/xen-emu.h: >>> >>> >>> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/dmukhin/xen/-/commit/9b0bc5ffa5710114df8523ae2aa7680b7c6f0942 >>> >>> That looks less invasive. >>> >>> Will that work? >>> >>> There should be a common header with emulation flags somewhere, since >>> there will be SBSA and hwdom vUART definitions there. >> >> Yet will there be a strict need for any constants to be identical (i.e. >> not only have the same name, but also the same value) across architectures? > > I don't think there's strict need for identical values across achitectures.
That's what I was expecting. > But some of the constants _may_ be reused for non-x86 arches, like VPCI bit > and, perhaps, IOMMU, PIRQ and future NS16550 (after adding MMIO). Right, but as you say - they want to use the same name, but they could easily have a different value there. I hope you understand that what I'm questioning is the introduction of a single header covering all architectures. Jan
