similar to: [PATCH v2] virtio-mmio: Update the device to OASIS spec version

This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" specification. Main changes: 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. 2. The driver detect the device version (version 1 is the pre-OASIS spec, version 2 is compatible with

This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" specification. Main changes: 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. 2. The driver detect the device version (version 1 is the pre-OASIS spec, version 2 is compatible with

This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" specification. Main changes: 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. 2. The driver detect the device version (version 1 is the pre-OASIS spec, version 2 is compatible with

This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" specification. Main changes: 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. 2. The driver detect the device version (version 1 is the pre-OASIS spec, version 2 is compatible with

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 06:12:11PM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote: > This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, > which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" > specification. > > Main changes: > > 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver > nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. >

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 06:12:11PM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote: > This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, > which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" > specification. > > Main changes: > > 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver > nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. >

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:38:04PM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote: > This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, > which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" > specification. > > Main changes: > > 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver > nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. >

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:38:04PM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote: > This patch add a support for second version of the virtio-mmio device, > which follows OASIS "Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0" > specification. > > Main changes: > > 1. The control register symbolic names use the new device/driver > nomenclature rather than the old guest/host one. >

Hi, On 01/20/2015 01:12 PM, Pawel Moll wrote: > @@ -356,13 +346,6 @@ static struct virtqueue *vm_setup_vq(struct virtio_device *vdev, unsigned index, > info->num /= 2; > } > > - /* Activate the queue */ > - writel(info->num, vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_NUM); > - writel(VIRTIO_MMIO_VRING_ALIGN, > - vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_ALIGN); > -

On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 03:33 +0100, Rusty Russell wrote: > No, that's it I think. Please send a diff for the documentation, since > I'm updating the LyX master and I've already applied your previous > version. Here it goes (below). Also do you think you would be able to merge the driver (corresponding v4 patch follows) in the 3.2 merge window that seems to have just opened?

On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 03:33 +0100, Rusty Russell wrote: > No, that's it I think. Please send a diff for the documentation, since > I'm updating the LyX master and I've already applied your previous > version. Here it goes (below). Also do you think you would be able to merge the driver (corresponding v4 patch follows) in the 3.2 merge window that seems to have just opened?

On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 16:51 +0000, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > + uint64_t addr = virt_to_phys(info->queue); > > Kernel normally uses u64 for this type. Sure, well spotted. > > + > > + writel(addr & 0xffffffff, > > + vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_DESC_LOW); > > + writel((addr

On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 16:51 +0000, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > + uint64_t addr = virt_to_phys(info->queue); > > Kernel normally uses u64 for this type. Sure, well spotted. > > + > > + writel(addr & 0xffffffff, > > + vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_DESC_LOW); > > + writel((addr

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API unconditionally. I'm sure it breaks things, but it seems to work on x86 using virtio-pci, with and without Xen, and using both the modern 1.0 variant and the legacy variant. This appears to work on native and Xen x86_64 using both modern and legacy virtio-pci. It also appears to work on arm and arm64. It definitely won't work as-is on s390x, and

This switches virtio to use the DMA API unconditionally. I'm sure it breaks things, but it seems to work on x86 using virtio-pci, with and without Xen, and using both the modern 1.0 variant and the legacy variant. This appears to work on native and Xen x86_64 using both modern and legacy virtio-pci. It also appears to work on arm and arm64. It definitely won't work as-is on s390x, and

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too