On 22/06/12 21:36, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
>> +
>> +void kvm_vgic_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>> + struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
>> +
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_init(&vgic_cpu->lock);
>> + for (i = 0; i < VGIC_NR_IRQS; i++) {
>> + if (i < 16)
>> + vgic_bitmap_set_irq_val(&dist->irq_enabled,
>> + vcpu->vcpu_id, i, 1);
>> + vgic_cpu->vgic_irq_lr_map[i] = 0xff;
>> + }
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(!vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vctrl_base);
>> + vgic_cpu->nr_lr = (readl_relaxed(vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vctrl_base + GICH_VTR) & 0x1f) + 1;
>> + for (i = 0; i < vgic_cpu->nr_lr; i++)
>> + vgic_cpu->vgic_lr_irq_map[i] = VGIC_NR_IRQS;
>> +
>> + vgic_cpu->vgic_mcr = readl_relaxed(vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vctrl_base + GICH_VMCR);
>> + vgic_cpu->vgic_mcr |= 0xf << 28; /* Priority */
>
> uh, why is this 0xf << 28? shouldn't it be 0x1f << 27 ?
Well, it doesn't really matter, as we inject all interrupts with a 0
priority. But yes, 0x1f << 27 is probably the right thing.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
