Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v2] spapr: populate ibm,loc-code

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 03/30/2015 01:25 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 01:18:01PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > On 03/27/2015 08:49 PM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> > > Each hardware instance has a platform unique location code.  The OF
> > > device tree that describes a part of a hardware entity must include
> > > the “ibm,loc-code” property with a value that represents the location
> > > code for that hardware entity.
> > >
> > > Introduce an hcall to populate ibm,loc-code.
> > > 1) PCI passthru devices need to identify with its own ibm,loc-code
> > >     available on the host.
> > > 2) Emulated devices encode as following: qemu_<name>:<slot>.<fn>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nikunj A Dadhania <address@hidden>
> [snip]
> > > diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h b/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h
> > > index af71e8b..95157ac 100644
> > > --- a/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h
> > > +++ b/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h
> > > @@ -310,7 +310,10 @@ typedef struct sPAPREnvironment {
> > >   #define KVMPPC_H_LOGICAL_MEMOP  (KVMPPC_HCALL_BASE + 0x1)
> > >   /* Client Architecture support */
> > >   #define KVMPPC_H_CAS            (KVMPPC_HCALL_BASE + 0x2)
> > > -#define KVMPPC_HCALL_MAX        KVMPPC_H_CAS
> > > +#define KVMPPC_H_RTAS_UPDATE    (KVMPPC_HCALL_BASE + 0x3)
> > > +#define KVMPPC_H_REPORT_MC_ERR  (KVMPPC_HCALL_BASE + 0x4)
> > > +#define KVMPPC_H_GET_LOC_CODE   (KVMPPC_HCALL_BASE + 0x5)
> > > +#define KVMPPC_HCALL_MAX        KVMPPC_H_GET_LOC_CODE
> >
> >
> > Please add only relevant codes. And what happened to patches adding
> > H_RTAS_UPDATE and H_REPORT_MC_ERR?
> >
> > Also (it is probably a very stupid question but still :) ), why are all
> > these callbacks - hypercalls, not RTAS calls? The hypercalls are numbered in
> > sPAPR and we kind of stealing numbers from that space while we are
> > allocating RTAS tokens ourselves and have more freedom.
>
> Also, I thought the plan was to remove PCI device enumeration from
> SLOF and move it to qemu (since we need to partially do that for
> hotplug).  That removes the need for the hcall entirely.


There was a strong opposition to PCI scan done by QEMU (although it was ok 
if PCI hotplug does some resource assignment in QEMU). Has this changed?

I added Michael in cc: and hope Alexander may enlighten us on this topic...



--
Alexey