On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:31:12 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 19 August 2016 at 14:05, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/08/16 13:53, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> Is it worth specifically saying "performance will be worse", or do we > >> expect this to only happen on systems where the h/w can't permit direct > >> access (as opposed to those with bad dt info) ? > > > > We cannot distinguish between the two, unfortunately. Even worse, ACPI > > only gives us a base address, and not the size of the region. So even if > > the HW was perfectly compliant with SBSA, we have to assume the worse case. > > Right, but if we expect this is mostly going to be "you just have > to live with it on this hardware" there's less point in printing > an alarming message, whereas if there's a significant subset of > "dt is just wrong" cases then the alarm might help in getting them > fixed, maybe... That'd require some more infrastructure from the kernel's GIC driver (which now provides the various base addresses), but I guess that we can have a look as well. Thanks, 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
