Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 06/19] xen: arm: move dom0 gic and timer device tree nodes under /xen/

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 18:28 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > Julien observed that we were relying on the provided host DTB supplying
> > > suitable #address-cells and #size-cells values to allow us to represent 
> > > these
> > > addresses, which may not reliably be the case. Moving these under our own
> > > known (somewhat analogous to the use of /soc/ or /motherboard/ on some
> > > platforms) allows us to control these sizes.
> > > 
> > > Since the xen node is created out of thin air it does not have a 
> > > corresponding
> > > struct dt_device_node and therefore we cannot use dt_n_addr_cells or
> > > dt_n_size_cells, we can use hardcoded constants instead. For the same 
> > > reason
> > > we define and use set_xen_range instead of dt_set_range.
> > > 
> > > The hypervisor, cpus and psci node all either defined #foo-cells for their
> > > children or do not contain reg properties and therefore can remain at the 
> > > top
> > > level.
> > > 
> > > The logging in make_gic_node was inconsistent. Fix it.
> > 
> > I think that using the string "xen" as node name is confusing.
> > I would use something more informative, as "xen-motherboard" or
> > "xen-virtual-devices", so that people can guess how it differs from
> > the hypervisor node.
> 
> The content is the GIC, timer and memory, so neither xen-motherboard nor
> xen-virtual-devices sound especially relevant.
> 
> No one will ever see this in practice, unless they are deliberately
> looking to debug it, since it is built on the fly and only for dom0.
> 
> TBH, I think /hypervisor/xen would have been fine.
> 
> "xen-system"? Still kinda lame.

xen-core-devices ?

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel