On 4/14/2023 1:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 14/04/2023 10:43, Yi-De Wu (吳一德) wrote:
On Thu, 2023-04-13 at 19:08 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
you have verified the sender or the content.
On 13/04/2023 14:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 13/04/2023 11:07, Yi-De Wu wrote:
From: "Yingshiuan Pan" <yingshiuan.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
GenieZone is MediaTek proprietary hypervisor solution, and it is
running
in EL2 stand alone as a type-I hypervisor. This patch exports a
set of
ioctl interfaces for userspace VMM (e.g., crosvm) to operate
guest VMs
lifecycle (creation, running, and destroy) on GenieZone.
Signed-off-by: Yingshiuan Pan <yingshiuan.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yi-De Wu <yi-de.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/gzvm_arch.h | 79 ++++
drivers/soc/mediatek/Kconfig | 2 +
drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/soc/mediatek/virt/geniezone/Kconfig | 17 +
Hypervisor drivers do not go to soc. Stop shoving there everything
from
your downstream. Find appropriate directory, e.g. maybe
drivers/virt.
Acked, what is the reason you want to add this to drivers/soc instead
of
drivers/virt?
Regards,
Matthias
Noted. We would take your advice and move it from
drivers/soc/mediatek/virt to /drivers/virt on next version.
The reason we put it under our soc/ is that the drver is highly
propietary for mediatek's product and for aarch64 only. Maybe it's not
general enough to put in under /drivers/virt.
If virt folks reject the driver, because it is highly proprietary, then
it is not suitable for soc/mediatek either.
Your argument is actually not helping you. It's rather a proof that this
driver might not be suitable for Linux kernel at all.
https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/kernel/common/+/2447547/1..2/drivers/virt/geniezone/gzvm.h#b91
I don't see there anything suggesting moving to soc/mediatek. Comment
from Trilok (+Cc) suggests that your code is simply not portable. Write
code which is portable and properly organized.
Thanks for the CC. I don't know how different these patches are from the
ACK post, but if they are similar then I am surprised that patches of
that state are posted here since they will need lot of work to get it
reviewed here.
Also, do you plan to open-source your hypervisor? I am not sure if that
is the requirement but it will be good to know if some version of your
Hypervisor is open-sourced or you have plan for that.
---Trilok Soni
