[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 |