On 26 May 2015 at 14:07, Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/26/2015 02:55 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 26 May 2015 at 13:54, Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> The only question I have is related to mid-term virt strategy about >>> GICv3 integration. Are we going to reuse that memory map for the machine >>> instantiating the GICv3? If yes, shouldn't we put the GICv2M somewhere >>> else to leave space for GICv3 redistributors, assuming we reuse the >>> shared distributor region. I understood the memory map is difficult to >>> change once applied once. >> >> I wouldn't expect that you'd have a GICv2M at all in a >> system with a GICv3 in it, would you? > > no indeed. but we currently use a single static a15memmap memory map in > virt. This one is currently planned to be reused for machines > instantiating GICv3 so we start seeing things like > VIRT_GIC_CPU = VIRT_GIC_REDIST. I fear this is going to become messy. I think the answer is not to reuse constant names like that. The v3 redistributor is not a v2 CPU interface, just as a UART is not an RTC. -- PMM _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
