On 12/05/16 09:35, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> The target register handlers are v2 emulation specific, so their
>> implementation lives entirely in vgic-mmio-v2.c.
>> We copy the old VGIC behaviour of assigning an IRQ to the first VCPU
>> set in the target mask instead of making it possibly pending on
>> multiple VCPUs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changelog RFC..v1:
>> - remove runtime VCPU determination from this v2-only register
>> - fold in implementation of vgic_v2_irq_change_affinity()
>> - replace ffs() with __ffs()
>>
>> Changelog v1 .. v2:
>> - adapt to new MMIO framework
>>
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
>> index 2a953ec..888529e 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
>> @@ -66,6 +66,47 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_v2_misc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> + gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
>> +{
>> + u32 intid = addr & 0x3ff;
>> + int i;
>> + u64 val = 0;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
>> + struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu, intid + i);
>> +
>> + val |= (u64)irq->targets << (i * 8);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return val;
>
> this register should allow byte access, so you're missing a call to
> extract_bytes() ?
>
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void vgic_mmio_write_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> + gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
>> + unsigned long val)
>> +{
>> + u32 intid = addr & 0x3ff;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + /* GICD_ITARGETSR[0-7] are read-only */
>> + if (intid < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
>> + struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, NULL, intid + i);
>> + int target;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
>> +
>> + irq->targets = (val >> (i * 8)) & 0xff;
>
> this doesn't seem right given byte accesses either, and I don't see the
> fixups we have in the works fixing it...
I'll give it a whirl. the priority stuff needs addressing as well.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
