From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [RFC 17/29] xen/arm: New callback in uart_driver to get device tree interrupt structure Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:09:04 +0100 Message-ID: <517EA930.6090909@linaro.org> References: <019572ab35c0212bbcfee16002738f9e5c8d1aa5.1367188423.git.julien.grall@linaro.org> <1367250385.3142.356.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1367250385.3142.356.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Anthony Perard , "patches@linaro.org" , Stefano Stabellini , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/29/2013 04:46 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 00:02 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >> The existing function serial_irq doesn't allow to retrieve if the interrupt >> is edge or level trigger. >> >> Use this function to route all serial IRQs to xen. > > All of them? At most we want the one Xen is using, don't we? My comment is a bit confusing. "all serial IRQs" means all IRQs of UART registered via serial_register_uart. Currently Xen on Arm can register zero one one UART (com1). >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall >> --- >> xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> xen/drivers/char/serial.c | 10 ++++++++++ >> xen/include/xen/serial.h | 5 +++++ >> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c >> index bf0c1fd..8085b6e 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c >> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ >> #include >> #include >> #include >> +#include >> #include >> #include >> #include >> @@ -497,9 +498,20 @@ void gic_route_ppis(void) >> >> void gic_route_spis(void) >> { >> + int seridx; >> + const struct dt_irq *irq; >> + >> /* XXX should get these from DT */ >> /* UART */ >> gic_route_irq(37, 0, 1u << smp_processor_id(), 0xa0); > > Did you intend to remove this line? Yes, I let this line to avoid to break xen boot on versatile express. -- Julien