[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5667487F.6040307@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:15:43 -0500
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] x86: rtc_cmos platform device requires
legacy irqs
On 12/08/2015 04:02 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 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.
> What's the state of this?
I think we are waiting for x86 maintainers to express their preference.
There were 3 proposals to add in add_rtc_cmos()
1. if (!nr_legacy_irqs())
return -ENODEV;
2. #ifdef XEN
if (xen_pv_domain())
return -ENODEV;
#endif
3. if (paravirt_enabled())
return -ENODEV;
-boris
--
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