[PATCH v7 01/24] KVM: arm/arm64: Add ITS save/restore API documentation

[Marc Zyngier]

On Sat, May 06 2017 at  4:24:20 pm BST, Eric Auger <eric.auger at redhat.com> wrote:
> Add description for how to access ITS registers and how to save/restore
> ITS tables into/from memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger at redhat.com>
>
> ---
> v6 -> v7:
> - rephrase ordering sequence + few cosmetic changes
>
> v5 -> v6:
> - add restoration ordering
> - 256B -> 256 Byte aligned
> - DTE Size is number of bits for the EVENTID
> - s/GITS_READR/GITS_CREADR
>
> v4 -> v5:
> - take into account Christoffer's comments
> - pending table save on GICV3 side now
>
> v3 -> v4:
> - take into account Peter's comments:
>   - typos
>   - KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ITS_TABLES kvm_device_attr = 0
>   - add a validity bit in DTE
>   - document all fields in CTE and ITE
>   - document ABI revision
> - take into account Andre's comments:
>   - document restrictions about GITS_CREADR writing and GITS_IIDR
>   - document -EBUSY error if one or more VCPUS are runnning
>   - document 64b registers only can be accessed with 64b access
> - itt_addr field matches bits [51:8] of the itt_addr
>
> v1 -> v2:
> - DTE and ITE now are 8 bytes
> - DTE and ITE now indexed by deviceid/eventid
> - use ITE name instead of ITTE
> - mentions ITT_addr matches bits [51:8] of the actual address
> - mentions LE layout
> ---
>  Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-its.txt | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 120 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-its.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-its.txt
> index 6081a5b..ba132e9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-its.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-its.txt
[...]

> + ITS Table ABI REV0:
> + -------------------
> +
> + Revision 0 of the ABI only supports physical LPIs.

Nit: these are no more physical than any other interrupt that KVM deals
with. If you're hinting at the lack of GICv4 support, it wouldn't
necessarily invalidate this ABI. It is actually even likely that the ABI
could stay the same (until we start supporting GICv4 in a nested
configuration).

> +
> + The device table and ITT are indexed by the deviceid and eventid,
> + respectively. The collection table is not indexed by collectionid:
> + CTEs are written in the table in the order of collection creation. All

Is this order really relevant? Can we relax it? Would something break if
collections were in a random order?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.