On 31/07/15 16:12, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>> Usually the time between two draft should be pretty short in order to
>> get sane base for discussion. For now, we are talking about small
>> portion of design and speculating/trying to remember what was agreed on
>> other sub-thread.
> ok will send draft 3
On 31/07/15 8:26 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
On 31/07/15 15:33, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 31/07/15 6:29 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 31/07/15 13:50, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Ok, i will implement the same from pciback to toolstack. I am not sure
about the complexity but will give it
On 31/07/15 15:33, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On 31/07/15 6:29 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Manish,
>>
>> On 31/07/15 13:50, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>>> Ok, i will implement the same from pciback to toolstack. I am not sure
>>> about the complexity but will give it a try.
>>> With this xen-
Hi Julien,
On 31/07/15 6:29 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 31/07/15 13:50, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Ok, i will implement the same from pciback to toolstack. I am not sure
about the complexity but will give it a try.
With this xen-pciback will not create the vdev-X entry at all.
Can you send
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 09:05 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > > > Secondly, the vdev-X entry is created async by dom0 watching on
> > > > > event.
>
> Stefano points out that
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:59 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Manish,
>
> On 31/07/15 13:50, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > Ok, i will implement the same from pciback to toolstack. I am not sure
> > about the complexity but will give it a try.
> > With this xen-pciback will not create the vdev-X entry at a
Hi Manish,
On 31/07/15 13:50, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> Ok, i will implement the same from pciback to toolstack. I am not sure
> about the complexity but will give it a try.
> With this xen-pciback will not create the vdev-X entry at all.
Can you send a new draft before continuing to implement PCI su
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 18:20 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On 31/07/15 4:49 pm, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > On Friday 31 July 2015 01:35 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > > > > > Sec
On 31/07/15 4:49 pm, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Friday 31 July 2015 01:35 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Secondly, the vdev-X entry is created async by dom0 watching on
event.
So how the tools
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Friday 31 July 2015 01:35 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > > > Secondly, the vdev-X entry is created async by dom0 watching on
> > > > > event.
> > > > > So how the tools could rea
On Friday 31 July 2015 01:35 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Secondly, the vdev-X entry is created async by dom0 watching on
event.
So how the tools could read back and call assign device again.
Perhaps by using a xenstore watch on that node to w
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 09:05 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > > Secondly, the vdev-X entry is created async by dom0 watching on
> > > > event.
Stefano points out that there are, confusingly, two nodes in xenstore
relating to the virtual-SBDF
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 13:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > Secondly, the vdev-X entry is created async by dom0 watching on
> > > event.
> > > So how the tools could read back and call assign device again.
> > Perhaps by using a xenstore watch on that node to wait for the
> > assignment
> > from
On Thursday 30 July 2015 08:09 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 18:21 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Thursday 30 July 2015 03:24 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 15:07 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 03:50 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-07-06
On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 18:21 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Thursday 30 July 2015 03:24 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 15:07 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > On Monday 06 July 2015 03:50 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:36 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >
On Thursday 30 July 2015 03:24 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 15:07 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 03:50 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:36 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 2015-07-05 a
On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 15:07 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Monday 06 July 2015 03:50 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:36 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > On Monday 06 July 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 11:25 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > >
On Monday 06 July 2015 03:50 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:36 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 11:25 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 29 June 2015 04:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 28/06/1
Hi Manish,
On 22/07/2015 06:41, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Can we keep this open and for now till there is agreement make
requesterid = bdf.
If you are ok, I will update and send Draft 3.
I think we can make an agreement on we are able to find a requesterID
based on the BDF but not that requesterID
On Tuesday 14 July 2015 11:31 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 14/07/2015 18:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Linux provides a function (pci_for_each_dma_alias) which will return a
requester ID for a given PCI device. It appears that the BDF
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 14/07/2015 18:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > Linux provides a function (pci_for_each_dma_alias) which will return a
> > > > requester ID for a given PCI device. It appears that the BDF (the 's' of
> > > > sBDF
> > > > is only int
Hi Stefano,
On 14/07/2015 18:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Linux provides a function (pci_for_each_dma_alias) which will return a
requester ID for a given PCI device. It appears that the BDF (the 's' of sBDF
is only internal to Linux and not part of the hardware) is equal to the
requester ID on
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 14:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > As asked you in the previous mail, can you please prove it? The
> > > function used to get the requester ID (pci_for_each_dma_alias) is more
> > > complex than a simple return sbdf.
> > I am not
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Manish,
> >
> > On 09/07/2015 08:13, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If this was a domctl there might be scope for accepting an
> > > > implementation which made assumptions such as sbdf == devicei
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Manish,
>
> On 09/07/2015 08:13, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > >
> > > If this was a domctl there might be scope for accepting an
> > > implementation which made assumptions such as sbdf == deviceid. However
> > > I'd still like to see this topic given prope
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 09/07/2015 12:30, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday 09 July 2015 01:38 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/07/2015 08:13, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
>
> If this was a domctl there might be scope for accepting an
> implem
On 09/07/2015 12:30, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Thursday 09 July 2015 01:38 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 09/07/2015 08:13, Manish Jaggi wrote:
If this was a domctl there might be scope for accepting an
implementation which made assumptions such as sbdf == deviceid. However
I'd still like to see th
On Thursday 09 July 2015 01:38 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 09/07/2015 08:13, Manish Jaggi wrote:
If this was a domctl there might be scope for accepting an
implementation which made assumptions such as sbdf == deviceid. However
I'd still like to see this topic given proper treatmen
Hi Manish,
On 09/07/2015 08:13, Manish Jaggi wrote:
If this was a domctl there might be scope for accepting an
implementation which made assumptions such as sbdf == deviceid. However
I'd still like to see this topic given proper treatment in the design
and not just glossed over with "this is ho
On Tuesday 07 July 2015 04:54 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 14:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
As asked you in the previous mail, can you please prove it? The
function used to get the requester ID (pci_for_each_dma_alias) is more
complex than a simple return sbdf.
I am not sure
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 11:25:25AM +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 29 June 2015 04:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> >Hi Manish,
> >
> >On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >>4.1 Holes in guest memory space
> >>
> >>Holes are added in the guest memory space f
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 14:16 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > As asked you in the previous mail, can you please prove it? The
> > function used to get the requester ID (pci_for_each_dma_alias) is more
> > complex than a simple return sbdf.
> I am not sure what you would like me to prove.
> As of Thu
On Tuesday 07 July 2015 02:16 PM, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Tuesday 07 July 2015 01:48 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 07/07/2015 08:10, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 05:15 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/07/15 12:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 04:13 PM, Ju
On Tuesday 07 July 2015 01:48 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 07/07/2015 08:10, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 05:15 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/07/15 12:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 04:13 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/07/15 06:55, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 07/07/2015 08:10, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 05:15 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/07/15 12:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 04:13 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/07/15 06:55, Manish Jaggi wrote:
4.3 Hypercall for bdf mapping notification to xen
-
On Monday 06 July 2015 05:15 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/07/15 12:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 06 July 2015 04:13 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/07/15 06:55, Manish Jaggi wrote:
4.3 Hypercall for bdf mapping notification to xen
---
#define P
On 06/07/15 12:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 06 July 2015 04:13 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 05/07/15 06:55, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> 4.3 Hypercall for bdf mapping notification to xen
> ---
> #define PHYSDEVOP_map_sbdf 4
On Monday 06 July 2015 04:13 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/07/15 06:55, Manish Jaggi wrote:
4.3 Hypercall for bdf mapping notification to xen
---
#define PHYSDEVOP_map_sbdf 43
typedef struct {
u32 s;
u8 b;
u8 df;
On 05/07/15 06:55, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>>> 4.3 Hypercall for bdf mapping notification to xen
>>> ---
>>> #define PHYSDEVOP_map_sbdf 43
>>> typedef struct {
>>> u32 s;
>>> u8 b;
>>> u8 df;
>>> u16 res;
>>> } sbdf_t;
>>> str
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:36 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Monday 06 July 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 11:25 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> On Monday 29 June 2015 04:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> Hi Manish,
> >>>
> >>> On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
On Monday 06 July 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 11:25 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 29 June 2015 04:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
4.1 Holes in guest memory space
Holes are added in
On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 11:25 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Monday 29 June 2015 04:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Manish,
> >
> > On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> 4.1 Holes in guest memory space
> >>
> >> Holes are added in the guest memory space for ma
On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 11:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >Ian Campbell Wrote:
> >>On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 00:08 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
> >> --
> >>
> >> Draft 2
> >>
> >> Index
> >>
> >> 1. Background
> >>
> >> 2. Basic PCI Support in Xen A
On Sunday 05 July 2015 11:25 AM, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Monday 29 June 2015 04:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
4.1 Holes in guest memory space
Holes are added in the guest memory space for mapping pci device's BAR
re
Ian Campbell Wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 00:08 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
--
Draft 2
Index
1. Background
2. Basic PCI Support in Xen ARM
2.1 pci_hostbridge and pci_hostbridge_ops
2.2 PHYSDEVOP_HOSTBRIDGE_ADD hypercall
3. Dom0 Access PCI de
On Monday 29 June 2015 04:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Manish,
On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
4.1 Holes in guest memory space
Holes are added in the guest memory space for mapping pci device's BAR
regions.
These are defined in arch-arm.h
/* For 32bit */
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 00:08 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
> --
>
> Draft 2
>
> Index
>
> 1. Background
>
> 2. Basic PCI Support in Xen ARM
> 2.1 pci_hostbridge and pci_hostbridge_ops
> 2.2 PHYSDEVOP_HOSTBRIDGE_ADD hypercall
>
> 3. Dom0 Access
On 29/06/15 11:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 11:31 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Manish,
>>
>> On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>>> 4.1 Holes in guest memory space
>>>
>>> Holes are added in the guest memory space for mapping pci device's BAR
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 11:31 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Manish,
>
> On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > 4.1 Holes in guest memory space
> >
> > Holes are added in the guest memory space for mapping pci device's BAR
> > regions.
> > These are defined in arch-
Hi Manish,
On 28/06/15 19:38, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> 4.1 Holes in guest memory space
>
> Holes are added in the guest memory space for mapping pci device's BAR
> regions.
> These are defined in arch-arm.h
>
> /* For 32bit */
> GUEST_MMIO_HOLE0_BASE, GUEST_MMIO_HOLE0_SI
PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
--
Draft 2
Index
1. Background
2. Basic PCI Support in Xen ARM
2.1 pci_hostbridge and pci_hostbridge_ops
2.2 PHYSDEVOP_HOSTBRIDGE_ADD hypercall
3. Dom0 Access PCI devices
4. DomU assignment of PCI device
4.1 Holes in guest memory space
4.2
51 matches
Mail list logo
