From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/21] xen/arm: Add virtual GICv3 support
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:07:59 +0100
Message-ID: <539DD2EF.4030500@linaro.org>
References: <1402580192-13937-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1402580192-13937-19-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406121806480.13771@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1406121806480.13771@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
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: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, vijay.kilari@gmail.com
Cc: Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com, Vijaya Kumar K <vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com>, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Stefano,

On 12/06/14 18:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, vijay.kilari@gmail.com wrote:
>> +    switch ( gicd_reg )
>> +    {
>> +    case GICD_CTLR:
>> +        if ( dabt.size != DABT_WORD ) goto bad_width;
>> +        vgic_lock(v);
>> +        *r = v->domain->arch.vgic.ctlr;
>> +        vgic_unlock(v);
>> +        return 1;
>> +    case GICD_TYPER:
>> +        if ( dabt.size != DABT_WORD ) goto bad_width;
>> +        /* No secure world support for guests. */
>> +        *r = (((v->domain->max_vcpus << 5) & GICD_TYPE_CPUS ) |
>> +              ((v->domain->arch.vgic.nr_lines / 32) & GICD_TYPE_LINES));
>> +        return 1;
>
> There used to be a vgic_lock(v) and vgic_unlock(v) here. Why did you
> remove them?

I don't think it's important to take the vgic lock here. Xen only access 
read-only data, max_vcpus and nr_lines doesn't change.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall