On 30.04.20 13:11, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:> * Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> [2020-04-30 11:41:50]:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 04:04:46PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>> If CONFIG_VIRTIO_MMIO_OPS is defined, then I expect this to be
unconditionally
>>> set to 'magic_qcom_ops' that uses hypervisor-supported
interface for IO (for
>>> example: message_queue_send() and message_queue_recevie()
hypercalls).
>>
>> Hmm, but then how would such a kernel work as a guest under all the
>> spec-compliant hypervisors out there?
>
> Ok I see your point and yes for better binary compatibility, the ops have
to be
> set based on runtime detection of hypervisor capabilities.
>
>>> Ok. I guess the other option is to standardize on a new virtio
transport (like
>>> ivshmem2-virtio)?
>>
>> I haven't looked at that, but I suppose it depends on what your
hypervisor
>> folks are willing to accomodate.
>
> I believe ivshmem2_virtio requires hypervisor to support PCI device
emulation
> (for life-cycle management of VMs), which our hypervisor may not support. A
> simple shared memory and doorbell or message-queue based transport will
work for
> us.
As written in our private conversation, a mapping of the ivshmem2 device
discovery to platform mechanism (device tree etc.) and maybe even the
register access for doorbell and life-cycle management to something
hypercall-like would be imaginable. What would count more from virtio
perspective is a common mapping on a shared memory transport.
That said, I also warned about all the features that PCI already defined
(such as message-based interrupts) which you may have to add when going
a different way for the shared memory device.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
