Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 2/4] xen/arm: Check for interrupt controller directly

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/03/2015 18:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 14:45 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hello Frediano,
> >
> > On 03/03/15 11:19, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > This check allow to detect mail interrupt controller even if it does
> > main
> >
> > > not match one of the standard ones.
> > > This allow boards with non standard controllers to be handled correctly
> > > without having to manually edit the global list every time.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <frediano.ziglio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> > > index 9f1f59f..83951a3 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> > > @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ static int handle_node(struct domain *d, struct 
> > > kernel_info *kinfo,
> > >
> > >       /* Replace these nodes with our own. Note that the original may be
> > >        * used_by DOMID_XEN so this check comes first. */
> > > -    if ( dt_match_node(gic_matches, node) )
> > > +    if ( node == dt_interrupt_controller || dt_match_node(gic_matches, node) )
> > >           return make_gic_node(d, kinfo->fdt, node);
> > What about if the device tree exposes multiple GICs? By mistake we will
> > expose the secondaries GIC if they are not standard.
> Does the existing code here not insert a primary gic node into the dom0
> tree for every gic node which find, that doesn't sound like it can be
> right!
The current code doesn't insert any secondary gic (see the check in 
make_gic_node) in the DT.
With this version of the patch secondary gics was added to the DOM0
DT

> Is the right pattern:
>      if ( node == dt_interrupt_controller )
>           return make_gic_node(d, kinfo->fdt, node);
>      else if ( device_get_class(node) == DEVICE_GIC )
>      {
>           DPRINT(" Secondary GIC, skip it\n");
>           return 0;/* Skip it */
>      }
> (incorporating the suggestion to match class from further down thread)?
>
> Anyway, I don't think what Frediano proposes in v9 of this series makes
> any of this worse, so I don't propose to block the series based on it.
The solution on the v9 was the right one.

I though I sent an email to review it but it looks like not :/

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

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