Julien, >> What we estimate now is a thin Dom0 without any drivers running with >> ramdisk. All drivers would be moved to a special guest domain. > > You may want to give a look what has been done on x86 with the "Dedicated > hardware domain". I have to look at the stuff.
> Another solution, is rather than moving the devices in a separate domain, > you move the toolstack. I see the point. But there are number of different reasons to have a thin initial domain. F.e. system boot time optimization which is critical for applications we focus on. For cases as following: a thin initial domain would start special domain, i.e. responsible for CAN communication (with minimal needed devices set) prior one with rich devices set, and a domain actually running IVI (with PV drivers only) would be started finally. > The latter may cause less trouble on platform without SMMU. I hope we do switch to a IOMMU capable platform. But still have some flashbacks to IOMMU-less systems. Sincerely, Andrii Anisov. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Andrii, > > On 14/11/2016 03:11, Andrii Anisov wrote: >>> >>> There are many reasons: for example because you want Dom0 to be Linux >>> and the storage driver domain to be FreeBSD. Or because you want the >>> network driver domain to be QNX. >> >> What we estimate now is a thin Dom0 without any drivers running with >> ramdisk. All drivers would be moved to a special guest domain. > > > You may want to give a look what has been done on x86 with the "Dedicated > hardware domain". > > Another solution, is rather than moving the devices in a separate domain, > you move the toolstack. The latter may cause less trouble on platform > without SMMU. > > Regards, > > -- > Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
