On 07/19/2012 04:16 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 19 July 2012 15:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07/19/2012 02:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 19 July 2012 12:43, Avi Kivity wrote:
Let's make them even more similar, by removing !in_kernel_irqchip.
Mmm, I do rather want to just mandate use of the
On 19 July 2012 15:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 07/19/2012 02:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 19 July 2012 12:43, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Let's make them even more similar, by removing !in_kernel_irqchip.
>>
>> Mmm, I do rather want to just mandate use of the VGIC...
>> (somebody will probably
On 07/19/2012 02:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 19 July 2012 12:43, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 07/19/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
Basically I'm not sure why there's all this variety here,
or why x86 does things differently for in-kernel irqchip
versus not -- I would have expected that the onl
On 19 July 2012 12:43, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/19/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> Basically I'm not sure why there's all this variety here,
>> or why x86 does things differently for in-kernel irqchip
>> versus not -- I would have expected that the only difference
>> for an in-kernel ir
On 07/19/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> Basically I'm not sure why there's all this variety here,
> or why x86 does things differently for in-kernel irqchip
> versus not -- I would have expected that the only difference
> for an in-kernel irqchip is that there are more interrupt
> lines.
Hi; I'm a bit confused about handling of passing interrupts
to KVM from QEMU.
Looking at a few of the current platforms:
x86, no in-kernel irqchip:
* we seem to use the usual non-KVM cpu_interrupt() and
cpu_reset_interrupt() functions, which in a KVM enabled QEMU
set flags in env->interrup
