Re: [Android-virt] [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Ian Campbell
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 15:10 +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 10:26:37AM +, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 18:32 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > KVM and Xen at least both fall into the single-return-va

Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Ian Campbell
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 18:15 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > What I suggested to the KVM developers is to start out with the > >

Re: [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Ian Campbell
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 18:32 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > KVM and Xen at least both fall into the single-return-value category, > > so we should be able to agree on a calling conventions. KVM does not > > have an hcall API on ARM yet, and I see

Re: [Android-virt] [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 04:44:40PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 03:42:19PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > How do you deal with signed integer arguments pas

Re: [Android-virt] [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 03:42:19PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > How do you deal with signed integer arguments passed into SVC or HVC from > > a caller? If I understand the architecture

Re: [Android-virt] [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 03:42:19PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Given the way register banking is done on AArch64, issuing an HVC on a > > 32-bit guest OS doesn't require translation on a 64-bit hypervisor. We > > have a similar implementati

Re: [Android-virt] [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Given the way register banking is done on AArch64, issuing an HVC on a > 32-bit guest OS doesn't require translation on a 64-bit hypervisor. We > have a similar implementation at the SVC level (for 32-bit user apps on > a 64-bit kernel), the on

Re: [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 18:32 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > KVM and Xen at least both fall into the single-return-value category, > > > so we should be able to agree on a calling conventions. KVM does not

Re: [Android-virt] [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-12-01 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 10:26:37AM +, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 18:32 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > KVM and Xen at least both fall into the single-return-value category, > > > so we should be able to agree on a calling con

Re: [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-11-30 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > In principal we could also offer the user options as to which particular > > platform a guest looks like. > > At least when using a qemu based simulation. Most platforms have some > characteristics that are not meaningful in a classic virtualization >

Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-11-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > > What I suggested to the KVM developers is to start out with the > > vexpress platform, but then generalize it to the point where it

Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-11-30 Thread Ian Campbell
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:03 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > For domU the DT would presumably be constructed by the toolstack (in > > dom0 userspace) as appropriate for the guest configur

Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-11-30 Thread Ian Campbell
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:03 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > Do you have a pointer to the kernel sources for the Linux guest?

Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-11-30 Thread Pawel Moll
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I don't care much either way, but I think it would be good to > use similar solutions across all hypervisors. The two options > that I've seen discussed for KVM were to use either a virtual PCI > bus with individual virtio-pci devices as on

Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions

2011-11-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:03 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > This is the same choice people have made for KVM, but it's not > > necessarily the best option in the long run. In particular