From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/33] xen/arm: Let the toolstack
 configure the number of SPIs
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:54:07 +0100
Message-ID: <1427799247.2115.61.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1426793399-6283-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1426793399-6283-17-git-send-email-julien.grall@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 1YctoC-0004ll-Uo
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:54:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1426793399-6283-17-git-send-email-julien.grall@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: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.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 Thu, 2015-03-19 at 19:29 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> @@ -68,16 +68,17 @@ static void vgic_init_pending_irq(struct pending_irq *p, unsigned int virq)
>      p->irq = virq;
>  }
>  
> -int domain_vgic_init(struct domain *d)
> +int domain_vgic_init(struct domain *d, unsigned int nr_spis)
>  {
>      int i;
>  
>      d->arch.vgic.ctlr = 0;
>  
[...]
> +    /* Limit the number of SPIs supported base on the hardware */
> +    if ( nr_spis > (gic_number_lines() - NR_LOCAL_IRQS) )
> +        return -EINVAL;

Is there anything in the h/w which leads to this restriction?

If not then I think we should just check against the architectural 1020
limit and leave it at that.


> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
> index 9e0419e..6dacfef 100644
> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
> @@ -125,6 +125,8 @@ struct arch_domain
>      unsigned int evtchn_irq;
>  }  __cacheline_aligned;
>  
> +#define domain_is_configured(d) ((d)->arch.is_configured)
> +
>  struct arch_vcpu
>  {
>      struct {
> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/setup.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/setup.h
> index ba5a67d..254cc17 100644
> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/setup.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/setup.h
> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ void copy_from_paddr(void *dst, paddr_t paddr, unsigned long len);
>  void arch_get_xen_caps(xen_capabilities_info_t *info);
>  
>  int construct_dom0(struct domain *d);
> +int configure_dom0(struct domain *d);

Are these two hunks stray from some other patch in the series?

Ian.