On 10.01.2013, at 12:53, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:17:09 +0000, Peter Maydell > <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 9 January 2013 22:30, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> In fact, in this particular case one could merge all of the patches >>> except for the >>> particular ioctl implementation and just give the respective addresses >>> default >>> values until there is an API to set them, similar to how we did things >>> with PVR >>> in the beginning. >> >> That's what we started with and we got review comments saying "yuck, >> don't hard code this"... > > Even worse: hard-coding things breaks kvmtool (we do not emulate a > vexpress and have a rather different memory map) and arm64 (the > requirements on GIC mappings are different). > > So hard coding addresses is already unacceptable. I see. The current approach with an intermediate ARM specific ioctl is certainly good with me then. And who knows - with a bit of luck we might be able to get a unified ioctl model for this before the code hits Linus' tree (read: APIs are really stable). Alex _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
