On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 22 October 2012 08:51, Christoffer Dall
>> <c.dall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > +struct kvm_device_address {
>> > + __u32 id;
>> > + __u64 addr;
>> > +};
>>
>> Ben suggested that this should either be a 64 bit id or have explicit
>> padding. Other than that I think that our current proposed ABI for
>> ARM irqchips is in line with the discussion we just had at KVM Forum
>> for handling non-x86 in-kernel irqchips [hopefully somebody will
>> write the details of that up...]
>>
>> Ben, do I have that right?
>
> I believe it is :-)
>
good, I'll rev the id to a 64 bit field for the next series (coming shortly)
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
