[PATCH v3 29/55] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Add TARGET registers handlers
From: Marc Zyngier <hidden>
Date: 2016-05-12 08:39:41
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm
On 12/05/16 09:35, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:quoted
The target register handlers are v2 emulation specific, so their implementation lives entirely in vgic-mmio-v2.c. We copy the old VGIC behaviour of assigning an IRQ to the first VCPU set in the target mask instead of making it possibly pending on multiple VCPUs. Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> --- Changelog RFC..v1: - remove runtime VCPU determination from this v2-only register - fold in implementation of vgic_v2_irq_change_affinity() - replace ffs() with __ffs() Changelog v1 .. v2: - adapt to new MMIO framework virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c index 2a953ec..888529e 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c@@ -66,6 +66,47 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_v2_misc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, } } +static unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, + gpa_t addr, unsigned int len) +{ + u32 intid = addr & 0x3ff; + int i; + u64 val = 0; + + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { + struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu, intid + i); + + val |= (u64)irq->targets << (i * 8); + } + + return val;this register should allow byte access, so you're missing a call to extract_bytes() ?quoted
+} + +static void vgic_mmio_write_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, + gpa_t addr, unsigned int len, + unsigned long val) +{ + u32 intid = addr & 0x3ff; + int i; + + /* GICD_ITARGETSR[0-7] are read-only */ + if (intid < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS) + return; + + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { + struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, NULL, intid + i); + int target; + + spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock); + + irq->targets = (val >> (i * 8)) & 0xff;this doesn't seem right given byte accesses either, and I don't see the fixups we have in the works fixing it...
I'll give it a whirl. the priority stuff needs addressing as well. M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...