On 2024/2/23 08:44, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>> On PVH dom0, the gsis don't get registered, but
>> the gsi of a passthrough device must be configured for it to
>> be able to be mapped into a hvm domU.
>> On Linux kernel side, it calles PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi for
>> passthrough devices to register gsi when dom0 is PVH.
>> So, add PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi for above purpose.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c
>> index 493998b42ec5..46f51ee459f6 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c
>> @@ -76,6 +76,12 @@ long hvm_physdev_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>> case PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq:
>> break;
>>
>> + case PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi:
>> + if ( !is_hardware_domain(currd) )
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + ASSERT(!has_pirq(currd));
>
> Do we really need this assert? I understand that the use case right now
> is for !has_pirq(currd) but in general it doesn't seem to me that
> PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi and !has_pirq should be tied together.
Make sense, thanks for explanation, I will delete this in next version.
>
> Aside from that, it looks fine.
>
>
>> + break;
>> +
>> case PHYSDEVOP_eoi:
>> case PHYSDEVOP_irq_status_query:
>> case PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq:
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
--
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.