From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6a 06/17] xen/arm: segregate and split GIC
 low level functionality
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:21:14 +0100
Message-ID: <53AC103A.1090603@linaro.org>
References: <1403760849-14627-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1403760849-14627-7-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1403760849-14627-7-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.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: vijay.kilari@gmail.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Cc: Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com, vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Vijay,

On 06/26/2014 06:33 AM, vijay.kilari@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@caviumnetworks.com>
> 
> GIC driver contains both generic and hardware specific low
> level functionality in gic.c file.
> 
> With this patch, low level functionality is moved to separate
> file gic-v2.c and generic code is kept in gic.c file
> 
> Callbacks are registered by low level driver with generic driver
> and are called wherever required.
> 
> The locking mechanism is not changed.
> 
> This helps to separate generic and hardware functionality
> and implement future hardware version drivers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@caviumnetworks.com>
> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>

I never acked this patch...

[..]

> +static void update_cpu_lr_mask(void)

Even if you made this function static, the function name still not match
what it does...

This function clear the LRs mask, I would call it:

clear_cpu_lr_mask(void)

> +{
> +    this_cpu(lr_mask) = 0ULL;
> +}

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall