On 03/30/2015 04:34 PM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
Nikunj A Dadhania <nik...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes:
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 <nik...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[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).
For me it was a short term plan.
Sorry, I meant PCI device enumeration removal from SLOF was a long term
plan.
It does not have to be removal, rather adding a case if there are already
devices present (or resources assigned) on a PHB in the device tree, then
do not do scan, something like that.
IMHO, this cant be done in short time.
That removes the need for the hcall entirely.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
Alexey
