Hi,
On 05/08/2020 00:22, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshche...@epam.com>
This patch adds ability to the device emulator to notify otherend
(some entity running in the guest) using a SPI and implements Arm
specific bits for it. Proposed interface allows emulator to set
the logical level of a one of a domain's IRQ lines.
Please note, this is a split/cleanup of Julien's PoC:
"Add support for Guest IO forwarding to a device emulator"
Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshche...@epam.com>
---
tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
tools/libs/devicemodel/include/xendevicemodel.h | 4 ++++
tools/libs/devicemodel/libxendevicemodel.map | 1 +
xen/arch/arm/dm.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
xen/common/hvm/dm.c | 1 +
xen/include/public/hvm/dm_op.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c b/tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c
index 4d40639..30bd79f 100644
--- a/tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c
+++ b/tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c
@@ -430,6 +430,24 @@ int xendevicemodel_set_isa_irq_level(
return xendevicemodel_op(dmod, domid, 1, &op, sizeof(op));
}
+int xendevicemodel_set_irq_level(
+ xendevicemodel_handle *dmod, domid_t domid, uint32_t irq,
+ unsigned int level)
It is a pity that having xen_dm_op_set_pci_intx_level and
xen_dm_op_set_isa_irq_level already we need to add a third one, but from
the names alone I don't think we can reuse either of them.
The problem is not the name...
It is very similar to set_isa_irq_level. We could almost rename
xendevicemodel_set_isa_irq_level to xendevicemodel_set_irq_level or,
better, just add an alias to it so that xendevicemodel_set_irq_level is
implemented by calling xendevicemodel_set_isa_irq_level. Honestly I am
not sure if it is worth doing it though. Any other opinions?
... the problem is the interrupt field is only 8-bit. So we would only
be able to cover IRQ 0 - 255.
It is not entirely clear how the existing subop could be extended
without breaking existing callers.
But I think we should plan for not needing two calls (one to set level
to 1, and one to set it to 0):
https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=159535112027405
I am not sure to understand your suggestion here? Are you suggesting to
remove the 'level' parameter?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall