[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 04/16] SUPPORT.md: Add core ARM features
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:39:07 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Cc: StefanoStabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim \(Xen.org\)" <tim@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:39:25 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
- Thread-index: AQHTXJXkcBK3woInLkmvyVsYhQbHy6MedrUAgAArIwCAAA5ggIAAERyA
- Thread-topic: [PATCH 04/16] SUPPORT.md: Add core ARM features
On 21.11.17 at 11:45, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/21/2017 08:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.11.17 at 16:41, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+### ARM/SMMUv1
+
+ Status: Supported
+
+### ARM/SMMUv2
+
+ Status: Supported
Do these belong here, when IOMMU isn't part of the corresponding
x86 patch?
Since there was recently a time when these weren't supported, I think
it's useful to have them in here. (Julien, let me know if you think
otherwise.)
Do you think it would be useful to include an IOMMU line for x86?
At
this point of the series I would surely have said "yes". The
later
PCI passthrough additions state this implicitly at least (by
requiring
an IOMMU for passthrough to be supported at all).
But
even then saying so explicitly may be better.
How much do we specifically need to break down? AMD / Intel?
What about something like this?
### IOMMU
Status, AMD IOMMU: Supported
Status, Intel VT-d: Supported
Status, ARM SMMUv1: Supported
Status, ARM SMMUv2: Supported
-George
|
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
