|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] xen/arm: gic: Check the size of the CPU and vCPU interface retrieved from DT
On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 15:17 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> @@ -641,7 +643,29 @@ static int __init gicv2_init(void)
> panic("GICv2: Cannot find the maintenance IRQ");
> gicv2_info.maintenance_irq = res;
>
> - /* TODO: Add check on distributor, cpu size */
> + /* TODO: Add check on distributor */
> +
> + /*
> + * The GICv2 CPU interface should at least be 8KB. Although, most of the
> DT
> + * doesn't correctly set it and use the GICv1 CPU interface size (i.e
> 4KB).
> + * Warn and then fixup.
> + */
> + if ( csize < SZ_8K )
> + {
> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "GICv2: WARNING: "
> + "The GICC size is wrong: %#"PRIx64" expected %#x\n",
> + csize, SZ_8K);
"is too small"?
> + csize = SZ_8K;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Check if the CPU interface and virtual CPU interface have the
> + * same size.
> + */
> + if ( csize != vsize )
> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "GICv2: WARNING: "
> + "Sizes of GICC (%#"PRIpaddr") and GICV (%#"PRIpaddr") don't
> match\n",
> + csize, vsize);
Should we also force them to be equal? Either
csize = vsize = min(csize,vsize)
or
vsize = csize
(probably the first)?
> + /*
> + * Only allow support of GICv2 compatible when the CPU interface
> + * and virtual CPU interface are 8KB
> + * XXX: Handle other size?
> + */
> + if ( csize != SZ_8K && vsize != SZ_8K )
I think you meant || ? Otherwise this is happy so long as one of them is
right rather than requiring both of them to be 8K.
WRT to the XXX I think I'd be happier if this was < SZ_8K for each.
Otherwise some future GIC which is compatible but has extensions to the
register space would needlessly require changes here. But I can live with
this.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |