On Wednesday 17 March 2010 23:21:08 Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > I would like to work on the PIRQ porting upstream Linux
> I am glad to hear that!
> > A simple version would be just using PIRQ instead of VIRQ in my
> > patches, but PIRQ is flexible, I would see if I can do more with it
> After the first part of your series gets applied, I'll rebase my pirq
> remapping patches on top of it, then you can tell me what's wrong so I
> can change it. I am very open to critics or suggestions.
> I would also prefer that you take my pirq remapping patches, you make
> any change you like, then you send your work to the list, rather than
> reinventing the wheel.
Yeah, I'd like to take your patch and modify it as much as possible, which
would be more efficient. Of course, with your signed-off hold. :)
> I value your contributions so I would be happy if you could work on my
> series, that even though is working still misses MSI support and I am
> sure you'll be able to make many other important improvements.
> > And we may not get a version exactly the same as pv_ops dom0 code in
> > the end... I would try to make them similar and make the HVM part
> > small enough, then reduce Jeremy's maintain effort.
> As pointed out before by Jeremy and Konrad, the best starting point is
> probably Konrad's pv/pcifront-2.6.31 tree: it contains most of the pirq
> stuff, ready to be upstreamed.
> AFAICT the only things required to make pirq mappings work (as in
> my series) that are missing are:
> - xen_register_gsi
> - xen_setup_pirqs
> - the xen_register_gsi hook in acpi_register_gsi
> the first two should be easy to port because they don't require any
> change but the last one definitely needs modifications in order to be
> accepted upstream.
> I didn't include MSI support because is not required, but that is
> another area that needs changes.
Xen-devel mailing list