Skip to content

vm_arm, trivial: align serial inputs to vm number#40

Merged
lsf37 merged 1 commit intoseL4:masterfrom
chrisguikema:serial_input
Mar 5, 2023
Merged

vm_arm, trivial: align serial inputs to vm number#40
lsf37 merged 1 commit intoseL4:masterfrom
chrisguikema:serial_input

Conversation

@chrisguikema
Copy link
Contributor

@chrisguikema chrisguikema commented Oct 20, 2022

Sets getchar_clients to be their VM number.

Test with: seL4/global-components#40

time_server.simple = true;

#define PER_VM_VIRTUAL_SERIAL_CONFIGURATION_DEF(num) \
vm##num.serial_getchar_attributes = num; \
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This same approach could be used for the output channels to ensure that the guests are always assigned the same colors?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It could, yeah. But I haven't seen that behavior like I was seeing with the getchar.

@chrisguikema
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kent-mcleod is this good to merge?

@kent-mcleod
Copy link
Member

@kent-mcleod is this good to merge?

This is coupled to seL4/global-components#40, so is currently blocked by it.

This commit ensures the VM->Serial Server connection has the same
attributes on per-build basis. "+1" is added to each attribute
such that VM0 doesn't have a 0 badge, which is the same as having
no badge.

Signed-off-by: Chris Guikema <chris.guikema@dornerworks.com>
@axel-h
Copy link
Member

axel-h commented Mar 4, 2023

This is coupled to seL4/global-components#40, so is currently blocked by it.

This is merged now, so anything still blocking the merge now?

@lsf37 lsf37 merged commit 505929d into seL4:master Mar 5, 2023
@kent-mcleod
Copy link
Member

This is merged now, so anything still blocking the merge now?

I recall I tried to explain somewhere that using the VM ID as the serial sever client ID on the interfaces wasn't the right approach hence why I hadn't approved it.

@lsf37
Copy link
Member

lsf37 commented Mar 5, 2023

Ah, sorry, was a bit too quick on this one. Should we revert?

@kent-mcleod
Copy link
Member

Ah, sorry, was a bit too quick on this one. Should we revert?

Yes I think so. seL4/global-components#45 is what this PR was associated with.

@lsf37
Copy link
Member

lsf37 commented Mar 5, 2023

Ok, will push a revert.

lsf37 added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2023
This reverts commit 505929d.

Should have merged this yet, the discussion on #40 was not yet finished.
@lsf37
Copy link
Member

lsf37 commented Mar 5, 2023

Reverted in d45e30b.

I don't think there is an option to re-open the PR, so we'll have to raise a new one when it is figured out what should be done.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants