Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754454AbbLDPwh (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:52:37 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59475 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753437AbbLDPwf (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:52:35 -0500 From: Vitaly Kuznetsov To: Boris Ostrovsky Cc: David Vrabel , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] x86: rtc_cmos platform device requires legacy irqs References: <1449139404-25101-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <56619DCE.3050900@citrix.com> <5661B033.10503@citrix.com> <5661B2AD.3030808@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:52:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5661B2AD.3030808@oracle.com> (Boris Ostrovsky's message of "Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:35:09 -0500") Message-ID: <87io4e5hz4.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1405 Lines: 43 Boris Ostrovsky writes: > On 12/04/2015 10:24 AM, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 04/12/15 14:06, David Vrabel wrote: >>> On 03/12/15 10:43, David Vrabel wrote: >>>> Adding the rtc platform device when there are no legacy irqs (no >>>> legacy PIC) causes a conflict with other devices that end up using the >>>> same irq number. >>> An alternative is to remove the rtc_cmos platform device in Xen PV >>> guests. >>> >>> Any preference on how this regression should be fixed? >>> >>> David >>> >>> 8<-------------------------- >>> x86: Xen PV guests don't have the rtc_cmos platform device >>> >> [...] >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c >>> @@ -200,6 +200,9 @@ static __init int add_rtc_cmos(void) >>> } >>> #endif >>> + if (xen_pv_domain()) >>> + return -ENODEV; >>> + >> Note there's a missing include that breaks !XEN builds. > > We could also use paravirt_enable() here which will probably cover > HVMlite case as well. (Until we start turning on and off various > HVMlite features). Would it make sense to create a new abstraction, e.g. 'rtc_available' in struct hypervisor_x86? -- Vitaly -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/