> On 17 Jul 2020, at 17:30, Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:23:57PM +0000, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> >> >>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 17:05, Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 02:49:20PM +0000, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 16:41, Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 02:34:55PM +0000, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 16:06, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17.07.2020 15:59, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 15:19, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17.07.2020 15:14, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 10:10, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 16.07.2020 19:10, Rahul Singh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> # Emulated PCI device tree node in libxl: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Libxl is creating a virtual PCI device tree node in the device >>>>>>>>>>>> tree to enable the guest OS to discover the virtual PCI during >>>>>>>>>>>> guest boot. We introduced the new config option [vpci="pci_ecam"] >>>>>>>>>>>> for guests. When this config option is enabled in a guest >>>>>>>>>>>> configuration, a PCI device tree node will be created in the guest >>>>>>>>>>>> device tree. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I support Stefano's suggestion for this to be an optional thing, >>>>>>>>>>> i.e. >>>>>>>>>>> there to be no need for it when there are PCI devices assigned to >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> guest anyway. I also wonder about the pci_ prefix here - isn't >>>>>>>>>>> vpci="ecam" as unambiguous? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This could be a problem as we need to know that this is required for >>>>>>>>>> a guest upfront so that PCI devices can be assigned after using xl. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I don't understand: When there are no PCI device that get >>>>>>>>> handed to a guest when it gets created, but it is supposed to be able >>>>>>>>> to have some assigned while already running, then we agree the option >>>>>>>>> is needed (afaict). When PCI devices get handed to the guest while it >>>>>>>>> gets constructed, where's the problem to infer this option from the >>>>>>>>> presence of PCI devices in the guest configuration? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the user wants to use xl pci-attach to attach in runtime a device >>>>>>>> to a guest, this guest must have a VPCI bus (even with no devices). >>>>>>>> If we do not have the vpci parameter in the configuration this use >>>>>>>> case will not work anymore. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's what everyone looks to agree with. Yet why is the parameter >>>>>>> needed >>>>>>> when there _are_ PCI devices anyway? That's the "optional" that Stefano >>>>>>> was suggesting, aiui. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree in this case the parameter could be optional and only required >>>>>> if not PCI device is assigned directly in the guest configuration. >>>>> >>>>> Where will the ECAM region(s) appear on the guest physmap? >>>>> >>>>> Are you going to re-use the same locations as on the physical >>>>> hardware, or will they appear somewhere else? >>>> >>>> We will add some new definitions for the ECAM regions in the guest physmap >>>> declared in xen (include/asm-arm/config.h) >>> >>> I think I'm confused, but that file doesn't contain anything related >>> to the guest physmap, that's the Xen virtual memory layout on Arm >>> AFAICT? >>> >>> Does this somehow relate to the physical memory map exposed to guests >>> on Arm? >> >> Yes it does. >> We will add new definitions there related to VPCI to reserve some areas for >> the VPCI ECAM and the IOMEM areas. > > Yes, that's completely fine and is what's done on x86, but again I > feel like I'm lost here, this is the Xen virtual memory map, how does > this relate to the guest physical memory map?
Sorry my bad, we will add values in include/public/arch-arm.h, wrong header :-) Bertrand > > Roger.
