Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/20] irqchip/gic-v3: Use SGIs without active state if
 offered
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Robert Richter <rrichter@marvell.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
References: <20200214145736.18550-1-maz@kernel.org>
 <20200214145736.18550-3-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <d8dc634f-bdd6-b2e6-a398-02b7e04efe67@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:18:10 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200214145736.18550-3-maz@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Marc,

On 2020/2/14 22:57, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> To allow the direct injection of SGIs into a guest, the GICv4.1
> architecture has to sacrifice the Active state so that SGIs look
> a lot like LPIs (they are injected by the same mechanism).
> 
> In order not to break existing software, the architecture gives
> offers guests OSs the choice: SGIs with or without an active
> state. It is the hypervisors duty to honor the guest's choice.
> 
> For this, the architecture offers a discovery bit indicating whether
> the GIC supports GICv4.1 SGIs (GICD_TYPER2.nASSGIcap), and another
> bit indicating whether the guest wants Active-less SGIs or not
> (controlled by GICD_CTLR.nASSGIreq).
> 
> A hypervisor not supporting GICv4.1 SGIs would leave nASSGIcap
> clear, and a guest not knowing about GICv4.1 SGIs (or definitely
> wanting an Active state) would leave nASSGIreq clear (both being
> thankfully backward compatible with oler revisions of the GIC).
older?

> 
> Since Linux is perfectly happy without an active state on SGIs,
> inform the hypervisor that we'll use that if offered.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>

Per the description of these two bits in the commit message,

Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>


Thanks