[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs jus

To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:48:11 -0700
Cc:	Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:48:56 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<m1zlc5jqac.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References:	<4A329CF8.4050502@xxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906181206190.4213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3A9220.4070807@xxxxxxxx> <m1zlc5jqac.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b2

On 06/18/09 12:27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The only actual exception I know of is Xen's replacement of the physical
>> local APIC with a paravirtualized interrupt interface.
>>     
>
> No one ever has.  Xen doesn't have I/O APICs either.  Not in any real
> sense.  Xen just has devices that looking like I/O apics if you don't
> look close.
>   

Well, if acpi_pci_irq_lookup() and friends return the right things
without having parsed the MADT and set up the secondary state, then we
should be fine either way.

acpi_irq_model gets tested in all sorts of random places, so I wonder if
we'll need to set it to ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOAPIC (or something else?) to
make things work properly.

Hm, and principle we just get the SCI gsi from the FADT, but there's all
that other mucking about with it in the MADT processing... Wonder what
needs to happen there...

    J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Jeremy Fitzhardinge

Next by Date:

RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] TSC scaling for live migration between platforms with different TSC frequecies, Dan Magenheimer

Previous by Thread:

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman

Next by Thread:

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just becaus