qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 2/5] hpet: entitle more irq pins for hpet


From: liu ping fan
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 2/5] hpet: entitle more irq pins for hpet
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:02:29 +0800

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:49:41AM +0800, liu ping fan wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:25:15AM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
>> >> On PC, IRQ2/8 can be reserved for hpet timer 0/1. And pin 16~23
>> >> of ioapic can be dynamically assigned to hpet as guest chooses.
>> >> (Will enable them after introducing pc 1.6 compat)
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan <address@hidden>
>> >> ---
>> >>  hw/timer/hpet.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>> >>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/hw/timer/hpet.c b/hw/timer/hpet.c
>> >> index 8429eb3..46903b9 100644
>> >> --- a/hw/timer/hpet.c
>> >> +++ b/hw/timer/hpet.c
>> >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>> >>   */
>> >>
>> >>  #include "hw/hw.h"
>> >> +#include "hw/boards.h"
>> >>  #include "hw/i386/pc.h"
>> >>  #include "ui/console.h"
>> >>  #include "qemu/timer.h"
>> >> @@ -42,6 +43,12 @@
>> >>
>> >>  #define HPET_MSI_SUPPORT        0
>> >>
>> >> +/* For bug compat, using only IRQ2. Soon it will be fixed as
>> >> + * 0xff0104ULL, i.e using IRQ16~23, IRQ8 and IRQ2
>> >
>> > So users are expected to stick a bitmask of legal
>> > pins here?
>> > I think that's a bit too much rope to give to users.
>> > Don't you think?
>> >
>> Sorry, not understand your meaning exactly.  But the scene will be:
>> guest kernel polls the ability bitmask, and pick up one pin which is
>> not occupied or can be shared with the level-trigger and low-active.
>> So is it rope?
>
> I merely say that it's better to make this a bool or bit property.
> UINT32 is too much flexibility imho.
>
The interrupt capability is export to guest by register
Tn_INT_ROUTE_CAP[63:32]. So it is useless to make them as a bit
property. Do you think so?

Regards
Pingfan

config register in hpet con
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Pingfan
>> >> after
>> >> + * introducing pc-1.6 compat.
>> >> + */
>> >> +#define HPET_TN_INT_CAP_DEFAULT 0x4ULL
>> >> +
>> >>  #define TYPE_HPET "hpet"
>> >>  #define HPET(obj) OBJECT_CHECK(HPETState, (obj), TYPE_HPET)
>> >>
>> >> @@ -73,6 +80,7 @@ typedef struct HPETState {
>> >>      uint8_t rtc_irq_level;
>> >>      qemu_irq pit_enabled;
>> >>      uint8_t num_timers;
>> >> +    uint32_t intcap;
>> >>      HPETTimer timer[HPET_MAX_TIMERS];
>> >>
>> >>      /* Memory-mapped, software visible registers */
>> >> @@ -663,8 +671,8 @@ static void hpet_reset(DeviceState *d)
>> >>          if (s->flags & (1 << HPET_MSI_SUPPORT)) {
>> >>              timer->config |= HPET_TN_FSB_CAP;
>> >>          }
>> >> -        /* advertise availability of ioapic inti2 */
>> >> -        timer->config |=  0x00000004ULL << 32;
>> >> +        /* advertise availability of ioapic int */
>> >> +        timer->config |=  (uint64_t)s->intcap << 32;
>> >>          timer->period = 0ULL;
>> >>          timer->wrap_flag = 0;
>> >>      }
>> >> @@ -753,6 +761,7 @@ static void hpet_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error 
>> >> **errp)
>> >>  static Property hpet_device_properties[] = {
>> >>      DEFINE_PROP_UINT8("timers", HPETState, num_timers, HPET_MIN_TIMERS),
>> >>      DEFINE_PROP_BIT("msi", HPETState, flags, HPET_MSI_SUPPORT, false),
>> >> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("intcap", HPETState, intcap, 
>> >> HPET_TN_INT_CAP_DEFAULT),
>> >>      DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
>> >>  };
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 1.8.1.4
>> >>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]