On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 09:54:55AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: >> On 22 March 2014 04:57, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 06:23:25PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: >> >> Currently, the in-kernel PSCI emulation provides PSCI v0.1 interface to >> >> VCPUs. This patch extends current in-kernel PSCI emulation to provide >> >> PSCI v0.2 interface to VCPUs. >> >> >> >> By default, ARM/ARM64 KVM will always provide PSCI v0.1 interface for >> >> keeping the ABI backward-compatible. >> >> >> >> To select PSCI v0.2 interface for VCPUs, the user space (i.e. QEMU or >> >> KVMTOOL) will have to set KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2 feature when doing VCPU >> >> init using KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT ioctl. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > The content here can carry my Reviewed-by tag, but I think Rob's point >> > about sharing this code between KVM arm/arm64 and the PSCI code itself >> > it important, see: >> > >> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241792.html >> >> My apologies, I totally missed Rob's comment. > > No worries at all. > >> >> My suggestion would be to have: >> arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/psci.h >> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/psci.h > > I think the suggestion was to move all this to include/uapi/linux/psci.h > or something equivalent so also arm and arm64 can share these defines, > but maybe I read too much into it. Yes. It is perfectly fine for a somewhat architecture specific header to live in include/linux (or include/uapi/linux). Rob _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
