Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] xen/arm: Introduce a generic way to describe device

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 14:26 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On 20/02/15 12:22, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 18:49 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> @@ -2,8 +2,34 @@
> >>  #define __ASM_ARM_DEVICE_H
> >>  
> >>  #include <xen/init.h>
> >> +
> >> +enum device_type
> >> +{
> >> +    DEV_DT,
> > 
> > I suppose no #ifdef here because an empty enum is a bit silly?
> 
> this code is ARM-specific and device tree is always supported for this
> architecture.

True. In that case the #ifdef HAS_DEVICE_TREE further down the file is
not needed either, right?

> >> +static inline struct dt_device_node *dev_to_dt(struct device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> +    ASSERT(dev->type == DEV_DT);
> >> +
> >> +    return container_of(dev, struct dt_device_node, dev);
> >> +}
> > 
> > Given that x86 uses a difference struct and doesn't support DT shouldn't
> > this either be wrapped in a HAVE_DEVICE_TREE or placed in the ARM header
> > (or some other common-to-all-dt-platforms header)?
> 
> That would be a mistake to include <xen/device_tree.h> on x86. Currently
> all the #include to this header are protected with #ifdef HAVE_DEVICE_TREE.

OK, thanks.