Re: [PATCH v2 15/26] xen/riscv: introduce (de)initialization helpers for vINTC

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/3/26 5:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.05.2026 16:43, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/riscv/intc.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/intc.c
> > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> >   
> >   #include <asm/aia.h>
> >   #include <asm/intc.h>
> > +#include <asm/vaplic.h>
> >   
> >   static const struct intc_hw_operations *__ro_after_init intc_hw_ops;
> >   
> > @@ -94,3 +95,38 @@ int __init make_intc_domU_node(struct kernel_info *kinfo)
> >   
> >       return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >   }
> > +
> > +int domain_vintc_init(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > +    int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +    const enum intc_version ver = intc_hw_ops->info->hw_version;
> Again - why would what the underlying hardware has control what all domains
> get?
If host uses AIA (APLIC/IMSIC) compatible controller then guest should 
use virtual AIA compatible controller, shouldn't it?
I don't think that it is a case when host uses PLIC interrupt controller 
but guests are going to use virtual APLIC.
> > +    switch ( ver )
> > +    {
> > +    case INTC_APLIC:
> > +        ret = domain_vaplic_init(d);
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    default:
> > +        printk("vintc (ver:%d) isn't implemented\n", ver);
> If we take this path for whatever reason, ...
>
> > +        break;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void domain_vintc_deinit(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > +    const enum intc_version ver = intc_hw_ops->info->hw_version;
> > +
> > +    switch ( ver )
> > +    {
> > +    case INTC_APLIC:
> > +        domain_vaplic_deinit(d);
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    default:
> > +        printk("vintc (ver:%d) isn't implemented\n", ver);
> ... we're also going to take this path (very quickly afterwards), just to
> get the same message twice without it being clear why it appears twice.
I missed to add printk("%s: ...", __func__, ...). I will update 
correspondingly if we will follow this way.
Thanks.

~ Oleksii