From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] xen/arm: Introduce a generic way
 to describe device
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:45:52 +0000
Message-ID: <1424789152.27930.360.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1422643768-23614-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1422643768-23614-7-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1424434952.30924.201.camel@citrix.com> <54EC8A0A.6000101@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1YQGlg-0004A2-63
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:47:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54EC8A0A.6000101@linaro.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

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.