qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 4/5] kvm_arm: Implement support for ITS e


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 4/5] kvm_arm: Implement support for ITS emulation by KVM
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:47:20 +0000

On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Pavel Fedin <address@hidden> wrote:
> This patch relies on new kernel API which is not released yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Fedin <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/intc/Makefile.objs          |  1 +
>  hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its_common.c |  2 +-
>  hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its_kvm.c    | 88 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its_kvm.c
>
> diff --git a/hw/intc/Makefile.objs b/hw/intc/Makefile.objs
> index 2d6543b..8d51111 100644
> --- a/hw/intc/Makefile.objs
> +++ b/hw/intc/Makefile.objs
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ common-obj-$(CONFIG_OPENPIC) += openpic.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_APIC) += apic.o apic_common.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_GIC_KVM) += arm_gic_kvm.o
>  obj-$(call land,$(CONFIG_ARM_GIC_KVM),$(TARGET_AARCH64)) += arm_gicv3_kvm.o
> +obj-$(call land,$(CONFIG_ARM_GIC_KVM),$(TARGET_AARCH64)) += 
> arm_gicv3_its_kvm.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_STELLARIS) += armv7m_nvic.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS4) += exynos4210_gic.o exynos4210_combiner.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_GRLIB) += grlib_irqmp.o
> diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its_common.c b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its_common.c
> index 873d62a..c040011 100644
> --- a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its_common.c
> +++ b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its_common.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static MemTxResult gicv3_its_trans_write(void *opaque, 
> hwaddr offset,
>      if (offset == 0x0040) {
>          GICv3ITSState *s = ARM_GICV3_ITS_COMMON(opaque);
>          GICv3ITSCommonClass *c = ARM_GICV3_ITS_COMMON_GET_CLASS(s);
> -        int ret = c->send_msi(s, le32_to_cpu(value), attrs.stream_id);
> +        int ret = c->send_msi(s, le32_to_cpu(value), attrs.requester_id);

Should this hunk have been squashed into the earlier patch which added
this code ?

Some of my comments on earlier patches have knock-on effects
on this code if you follow them, but otherwise this code looks good.

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

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