Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "magic_qcom_ops".
2020 Apr 30
0
[RFC/PATCH 1/1] virtio: Introduce MMIO ops
...gt; +#define virtio_writel(val, a) mmio_ops->mmio_writel((val), (a))
> >
> > How exactly are these ops hooked up? I'm envisaging something like:
> >
> > ops = spec_compliant_ops;
> > [...]
> > if (firmware_says_hypervisor_is_buggy())
> > ops = magic_qcom_ops;
> >
> > am I wrong?
>
> 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...
2020 Apr 30
0
[RFC/PATCH 1/1] virtio: Introduce MMIO ops
...+#define virtio_writew(val, a) mmio_ops->mmio_writew((val), (a))
> +#define virtio_writel(val, a) mmio_ops->mmio_writel((val), (a))
How exactly are these ops hooked up? I'm envisaging something like:
ops = spec_compliant_ops;
[...]
if (firmware_says_hypervisor_is_buggy())
ops = magic_qcom_ops;
am I wrong?
> +int register_virtio_mmio_ops(struct virtio_mmio_ops *ops)
> +{
> + pr_info("Registered %s as mmio ops\n", ops->name);
> + mmio_ops = ops;
Not looking good, and really defeats the point of standardising this stuff
imo.
Will
2020 Apr 30
0
[RFC/PATCH 1/1] virtio: Introduce MMIO ops
...: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...