On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 02:11:20PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Monday 07 Dec 2020 at 13:40:52 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote: > > Why not use the RESERVEDMEM_OF_DECLARE() interface for the hypervisor > > memory? That way, the hypervisor memory can either be statically partitioned > > as a carveout or allocated dynamically for us -- we wouldn't need to care. > > Yup, I did consider that, but the actual amount of memory we need to > reserve for the hypervisor depends on things such as the size of struct > hyp_page, which depends on the kernel you're running (that is, it might > change over time). So, that really felt like something the kernel should > be doing, to keep the DT backward compatible, ... Or did you have > something more elaborate in mind? No, that's fair. Just wanted to make sure we had a good reason not to use the existing memory reservation code. Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
