On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 22 October 2012 08:51, Christoffer Dall
>> wrote:
>> > +struct kvm_device_address {
>> > + __u32 id;
>> > + __u64 addr;
>> > +};
>>
>> Ben suggested that this
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 22 October 2012 08:51, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
> > +struct kvm_device_address {
> > + __u32 id;
> > + __u64 addr;
> > +};
>
> Ben suggested that this should either be a 64 bit id or have explicit
> padding. Other than that
On 22 October 2012 08:51, Christoffer Dall
wrote:
> +struct kvm_device_address {
> + __u32 id;
> + __u64 addr;
> +};
Ben suggested that this should either be a 64 bit id or have explicit
padding. Other than that I think that our current proposed ABI for
ARM irqchips is in line with th
On ARM (and possibly other architectures) some bits are specific to the
model being emulated for the guest and user space needs a way to tell
the kernel about those bits. An example is mmio device base addresses,
where KVM must know the base address for a given device to properly
emulate mmio acce
