Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] Arm Core Local Accelerator Driver

[Marc Zyngier]

Thanks Will for roping me in.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:33:17 +0100,
Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I'm deliberately constraining the scope to bare-metal support for now.
> > Virtualization is something we are considering (and have prototyped), but plan
> > to post a separate RFC for that as follow-up, once we have agreement on
> > direction for the bare-metal driver.
> 
> I'd actually like to see what the virtualisation part looks like first
> because doing it as a bolt-on later feels like the wrong approach. The
> structure you have at the moment is remarkably clean, given the
> architectural/CPU interactions (this thing even apparently builds as a
> module, nice!), but I'm unsure how far you can push the separation once
> you need to start hacking at KVM. Maybe the MMU notifiers are enough,
> but I can't tell.

+1.

Virtualisation cannot be a "bolt on the side" exercise. It is an
integral part of the arm64 tree, particularly for memory management
and scheduling, all of which have a direct impact on KVM.

I don't think we can really evaluate anything here without looking at
the full picture.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz isn't dead. It just smells funny.