[PATCH v1 3/6] soc: mediatek: virt: geniezone: Introduce GenieZone hypervisor support

[Trilok Soni]

On 4/14/2023 1:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/04/2023 10:43, Yi-De Wu (吳一德) wrote:
>> On Thu, 2023-04-13 at 19:08 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
>>> you have verified the sender or the content.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/04/2023 14:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2023 11:07, Yi-De Wu wrote:
>>>>> From: "Yingshiuan Pan" <yingshiuan.pan at mediatek.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> GenieZone is MediaTek proprietary hypervisor solution, and it is
>>>>> running
>>>>> in EL2 stand alone as a type-I hypervisor. This patch exports a
>>>>> set of
>>>>> ioctl interfaces for userspace VMM (e.g., crosvm) to operate
>>>>> guest VMs
>>>>> lifecycle (creation, running, and destroy) on GenieZone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yingshiuan Pan <yingshiuan.pan at mediatek.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yi-De Wu <yi-de.wu at mediatek.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/gzvm_arch.h       |  79 ++++
>>>>>    drivers/soc/mediatek/Kconfig                  |   2 +
>>>>>    drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile                 |   1 +
>>>>>    drivers/soc/mediatek/virt/geniezone/Kconfig   |  17 +
>>>>
>>>> Hypervisor drivers do not go to soc. Stop shoving there everything
>>>> from
>>>> your downstream. Find appropriate directory, e.g. maybe
>>>> drivers/virt.
>>>
>>> Acked, what is the reason you want to add this to drivers/soc instead
>>> of
>>> drivers/virt?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>> Noted. We would take your advice and move it from
>> drivers/soc/mediatek/virt to /drivers/virt on next version.
>>
>> The reason we put it under our soc/ is that the drver is highly
>> propietary for mediatek's product and for aarch64 only. Maybe it's not
>> general enough to put in under /drivers/virt.
> 
> If virt folks reject the driver, because it is highly proprietary, then
> it is not suitable for soc/mediatek either.
> 
> Your argument is actually not helping you. It's rather a proof that this
> driver might not be suitable for Linux kernel at all.
> 
>>
> https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/kernel/common/+/2447547/1..2/drivers/virt/geniezone/gzvm.h#b91
> 
> I don't see there anything suggesting moving to soc/mediatek. Comment
> from Trilok (+Cc) suggests that your code is simply not portable. Write
> code which is portable and properly organized.

Thanks for the CC. I don't know how different these patches are from the 
ACK post, but if they are similar then I am surprised that patches of 
that state are posted here since they will need lot of work to get it 
reviewed here.

Also, do you plan to open-source your hypervisor? I am not sure if that 
is the requirement but it will be good to know if some version of your 
Hypervisor is open-sourced or you have plan for that.

---Trilok Soni