[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50128FE6.5070109@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:56:06 -0400
From: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@....org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/24] xen/arm: hypercalls
On 07/27/2012 05:19 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 20:19 +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 07/26/2012 11:33 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> Use r12 to pass the hypercall number to the hypervisor.
>>>
>>> We need a register to pass the hypercall number because we might not
>>> know it at compile time and HVC only takes an immediate argument.
>>
>> You're not going to JIT assemble the appropriate HVC instruction? Darn.
>
> ;-)
>
>> How many call numbers are there, though? 8?
>
> The maximum currently defined hypercall number is 55, although there are
> some small gaps so there's actually more like 45 in total.
>
>> It seems like it'd be
>> reasonable to take the approach that seems to be favored for MRC/MCR
>> instructions, using a function containing switch statement that chooses
>> between several inline assembly instructions based off an enum passed to
>> the function. See for example arch_timer_reg_read in
>> arch/arm/kernel/arch_timer.c.
>
> I don't think it is feasible with this number of hypercalls, even
> accepting that in many cases the number will be a constant so gcc can
> likely optimise almost all of it away.
>
> Is there something wrong with the r12 based approach?
Only that you're defining a custom interface for something that there is
a potentially more standard interface for. I just wanted to double check
that all the ways of using the potentially more standard interface had
been explored and found to be unreasonable.
Christopher
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists