* Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2019-08-24 23:19:19]: > > On 8/23/19 9:48 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Hi Claudio, > > Hi Michael, > > > > > Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Ultravisor (UV) provides an in-memory console which follows the OPAL > >> in-memory console structure. > >> > >> This patch extends the OPAL msglog code to also initialize the UV memory > >> console and provide a sysfs interface (uv_msglog) for userspace to view > >> the UV message log. > >> > >> CC: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> This patch depends on the "kvmppc: Paravirtualize KVM to support > >> ultravisor" patchset submitted by Claudio Carvalho. > >> --- > >> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-msglog.c | 99 ++++++++++++++------ > >> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > I think the code changes look mostly OK here. > > > > But I'm not sure about the end result in sysfs. > > > > If I'm reading it right this will create: > > > > /sys/firmware/opal/uv_msglog > > > > Which I think is a little weird, because the UV is not OPAL. > > > > So I guess I wonder if the file should be created elsewhere to avoid any > > confusion and keep things nicely separated. > > > > Possibly /sys/firmware/ultravisor/msglog ? > > > Yes, makes sense. I will do that. +1 Letting the UV have its own /sys/firmware/ultravisor/xxx is a good idea. We may have a need to export more runtime data from UV for debug/profile purposes and this sysfs directory will come handy. --Vaidy
