[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/ |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:15:17 +0100 |
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 10:02, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 05:32, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > The QAPI command which this code is implementing is
> >> > also (a) target-specific and (b) unfortunately
> >> > designed so that it doesn't get passed a particular
> >> > CPU or particular device to query, it's just assumed
> >> > to be a part of the whole simulation.
> >>
> >> We can fix (b) if we care: add a suitable optional argument, default to
> >> the sole GIC in the system, fail if there's more than one. I assume we
> >> have no machines with more than one now.
> >
> > The exynos4210 SoC (board types 'nuri', 'smdkc210') has
> > two GICs. (It's a rather odd design -- there's the
> > interrupt controller that's part of the main CPU
> > cluster, and then they used a second "external" GIC
> > that feeds into that one.)
>
> Then "fail if there's more than one" would be an incompatible change for
> this machine.
>
> If the two GICs have identical capabilities, it doesn't matter to which
> of the two query-gic-capabilities technically applies.
>
> Else, it matters, and we have an interface issue. Do we?
It's not possible to use KVM with that machine type, so the
question is a bit moot. (This also indicates that the
interface is not very helpful -- it purports to tell the
management layer whether it can use an accelerated in-kernel
GIC, but because it doesn't specifiy the board type there's
no way to provide an accurate answer. It would be useful
to know exactly what libvirt/etc actually use this for...)
thanks
-- PMM
- [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 0/2] hw/intc/arm_gic: Only provide query-gic-capabilities when GIC built-in, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2024/08/06
- [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2024/08/06
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Richard Henderson, 2024/08/06
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2024/08/07
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Peter Maydell, 2024/08/07
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Markus Armbruster, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Peter Maydell, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Markus Armbruster, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/,
Peter Maydell <=
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Markus Armbruster, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Peter Maydell, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2024/08/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Peter Maydell, 2024/08/08
Re: [RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 1/2] target/arm: Move qmp_query_gic_capabilities() to hw/intc/, Markus Armbruster, 2024/08/07
[RFC PATCH-for-9.1? 2/2] hw/intc/arm_gic: Only provide query-gic-capabilities when GIC built-in, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2024/08/06