In old X-Gene Storm firmware and DT, secure mode addresses have been
mentioned in GICv2 node. In this case maintenance interrupt is used
instead of EOI HW method.
This patch checks the GIC Distributor Base Address to enable EOI quirk
for old firmware.
Ref:
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-d
Hi Pranav,
Thank you for the patch.
On 06/04/2015 10:54, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
In old X-Gene Storm firmware and DT, secure mode addresses have been
mentioned in GICv2 node. In this case maintenance interrupt is used
instead of EOI HW method.
This patch checks the GIC Distributor Base
On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Pranav,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On 06/04/2015 10:54, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
> > In old X-Gene Storm firmware and DT, secure mode addresses have been
> > mentioned in GICv2 node. In this case maintenance interrupt is used
> > instead o
Hi Stefano,
On 07/04/2015 10:40, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Pranav,
Thank you for the patch.
On 06/04/2015 10:54, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
In old X-Gene Storm firmware and DT, secure mode addresses have been
mentioned in GICv2 node. In this ca
Hi Pranav,
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:24:01PM +0530, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
> In old X-Gene Storm firmware and DT, secure mode addresses have been
> mentioned in GICv2 node. In this case maintenance interrupt is used
> instead of EOI HW method.
>
> This patch checks the GIC Distributor B
On 8 April 2015 at 13:58, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Pranav,
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:24:01PM +0530, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
>> In old X-Gene Storm firmware and DT, secure mode addresses have been
>> mentioned in GICv2 node. In this case maintenance interrupt is used
>> instead of
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:29 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> This would avoid to have this loop and rely on there is always only one
> >> interrupt controller in the DT.
> >
> > That is true, however we do know that on this SoC there is only one GIC,
> > so it might be acceptable to rely on this kno
Hi Ian,
On 15 April 2015 at 21:46, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:29 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> >> This would avoid to have this loop and rely on there is always only one
>> >> interrupt controller in the DT.
>> >
>> > That is true, however we do know that on this SoC there is