[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/5] xen/arm: add dom0less device assignment info to docs
Hi,
On 1/3/19 10:07 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 12/5/18 5:28 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 108
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 108 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
index 317a9e9..f5aaf8f 100644
--- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
+++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
@@ -226,3 +226,111 @@ chosen {
};
};
};
+
+
+Device Assignment
+=================
+
+Device Assignment (Passthrough) is supported by adding another module,
+alongside the kernel and ramdisk, with the device tree fragment
+corresponding to the device node to assign to the guest.
+
+The dtb sub-node should have the following properties:
+
+- compatible
+
+ "multiboot,dtb"
I would prefer "multiboot,device-tree"
I renamed it
+
+- reg
+
+ Specifies the physical address of the device tree binary fragment
+ RAM and its length.
+
+As an example:
+
+ module@0xc000000 {
+ compatible = "multiboot,dtb", "multiboot,module";
+ reg = <0x0 0xc000000 0xffffff>;
+ };
+
+The DTB fragment (loaded in memory at 0xc000000 in the example above)
+should follow the convention explained in docs/misc/arm/passthrough.txt.
+The DTB fragment will be added to the guest device tree, so that the
+guest kernel will be able to discover the device.
+
+In addition, the following properties for each device node in the device
+tree fragment will be used for the device assignment setup:
+
+- reg
+
+ The reg property specifying the address and size of the device memory.
+ The device memory will be automatically mapped to the guest domain
+ with a 1:1 mapping (pseudo-physical address == physical address).
As said in a previous patch, I don't think this is correct to impose 1:1. The
user is neither in control of the HW memory map nor the Guest memory map. So
not many people are going to be able to use it without hacking Xen.
Yes, I'll fix this (and a couple of other issues) by introducing a new
"xen,reg" property, instead of trying to reuse the existing reg
property.
+
+- interrupts
+
+ The interrupts property specifies the interrupt of the device. They
+ are automatically routed to the guest domain with virtual irqs ==
+ physical irqs.
+
+- interrupt-parent
+
+ It contains a reference to the interrupt controller node. It should be
+ 65000, corresponding to GUEST_PHANDLE_GIC.
We managed to get away in the toolstack with this property. So why do you need
it for the hypervisor? Furthermore, this would forbid to passthrough any other
interrupt controller to the guest.
The toolstack does use GUEST_PHANDLE_GIC today for passthrough
interrupts, see tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c:make_root_properties and
docs/misc/arm/passthrough.txt:
* The interrupt-parent property will be added by the toolstack in the
root node;
You misunderstood my point here. The toolstack is adding the property
for the user. So why does you require the user to add this property for
Dom0less case?
interrupt-parent always points to the guest GIC node, for virtual
interrupts such as the vuart, as well as physical passthrough
interrupts. Also see tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c:fdt_property_interrupts and
tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c:make_gicv2_node.
The "interrupt-parent" in those nodes are not necessary because the root
contain "interrupt-parent". The property is only useful if you are going
to use a different controller than the default one. For instance if you
are using a GPIO controller.
I don't think the scenario you are describing is supported today.
See my answer on patch #2. I can't see why it is not supported today.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
