David Vrabel wrote: > On 09/07/12 15:45, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 05:14:41PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> We used to rely on a core_initcall to initialize Xen on ARM, however >>> core_initcalls are actually called after early consoles are initialized. >>> That means that hvc_xen.c is going to be initialized before Xen. >>> >>> Given the lack of a better alternative, just call a new Xen >>> initialization function (xen_guest_init) from xen_cons_init. >>> >>> xen_guest_init has to be arch independant, so write both an ARM and an >>> x86 implementation. The x86 implementation is currently empty because we >>> can be sure that xen_hvm_guest_init is called early enough. >>> >>> Probably we can get rid of this as soon as we have better DT support. >> What is DT? > > Device Tree. It's a binary describing the hardware and some system > configuration that is passed to the kernel by the boot loader or (in > this case) the hypervisor. Vaguely analogous to ACPI except it's not > crazy ;). > > We really should get the device tree bindings sorted out before > accepting any kernel side patches. I think we can do this even if Xen's > device tree support is incomplete.
Will this be passed from the hypervisor to the linux kernel using a specific mechanism (different than the native one)? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
