Message ID | 1537539920-30662-1-git-send-email-brijesh.singh@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | x86_iommu/amd: add interrupt remap support | expand |
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:25:42PM +0000, Singh, Brijesh wrote: [...] > +static int amdvi_int_remap_ga(AMDVIState *iommu, > + MSIMessage *origin, > + MSIMessage *translated, > + uint64_t *dte, > + X86IOMMUIrq *irq, > + uint16_t sid) > +{ > + int ret; > + struct irte_ga irte; > + > + /* get interrupt remapping table */ > + ret = amdvi_get_irte_ga(iommu, origin, dte, &irte, sid); > + if (ret < 0) { > + return ret; > + } > + > + if (!irte.lo.fields_remap.valid) { > + trace_amdvi_ir_target_abort("RemapEn is disabled"); > + return -AMDVI_IR_TARGET_ABORT; > + } > + > + if (irte.lo.fields_remap.guest_mode) { > + trace_amdvi_ir_err("guest mode is not zero"); Just to let you know that you mentioned about replacing some of the traces with error_report_once() but I didn't see any in this latest version. Again that's optional so traces would be fine, but I'm still pointing that out in case you wanted that and you're posting a wrong tree. Otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks,
On 9/25/18 1:57 AM, Peter Xu wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:25:42PM +0000, Singh, Brijesh wrote: > > [...] > >> +static int amdvi_int_remap_ga(AMDVIState *iommu, >> + MSIMessage *origin, >> + MSIMessage *translated, >> + uint64_t *dte, >> + X86IOMMUIrq *irq, >> + uint16_t sid) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + struct irte_ga irte; >> + >> + /* get interrupt remapping table */ >> + ret = amdvi_get_irte_ga(iommu, origin, dte, &irte, sid); >> + if (ret < 0) { >> + return ret; >> + } >> + >> + if (!irte.lo.fields_remap.valid) { >> + trace_amdvi_ir_target_abort("RemapEn is disabled"); >> + return -AMDVI_IR_TARGET_ABORT; >> + } >> + >> + if (irte.lo.fields_remap.guest_mode) { >> + trace_amdvi_ir_err("guest mode is not zero"); > Just to let you know that you mentioned about replacing some of the > traces with error_report_once() but I didn't see any in this latest > version. Again that's optional so traces would be fine, but I'm still > pointing that out in case you wanted that and you're posting a wrong > tree. Hmm, let me go back to my patches again, i thought I used error_report_once() in few places but it seems those are lost somewhere. thanks for pointing this out. > Otherwise it looks good to me. > > Thanks, >