Re: [PATCH for 4.6 07/13] xen: Introduce a generic way to describe device

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>]

Hi Jan,

On 17/12/2014 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.12.14 at 21:08, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/Makefile
>> +++ b/xen/common/Makefile
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ obj-y += bitmap.o
>>   obj-y += core_parking.o
>>   obj-y += cpu.o
>>   obj-y += cpupool.o
>> +obj-y += device.o
>
> Shouldn't this instead be two lines, one using HAS_PCI and the second
> HAS_DEVICE_TREE?

When ARM will gain PCI will, it will fail to compile because device.o is 
included twice.

>
>> @@ -75,8 +76,19 @@ struct pci_dev {
>>   #define PT_FAULT_THRESHOLD 10
>>       } fault;
>>       u64 vf_rlen[6];
>> +
>> +    struct device dev;
>>   };
>
> I'm not convinced yet that growing this structure (of which we have
> quite many instances on some systems) is really worth it, in particular
> on x86 where we (so far) only have one device type anyway.

Actually this will growing by only sizeof (enum type) on x86.

Having a generic way to describe device will really help ARM code (see 
IOMMU).

If we don't have a such thing, we may need to duplicate quite a lots of 
code. Which will make hard to maintain.

>> +#define pci_to_dev(pcidev)  (&(pcidev)->dev)
>> +
>> +static inline struct pci_dev *dev_to_pci(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +    ASSERT(dev->type == DEV_PCI);
>> +
>> +    return container_of(dev, struct pci_dev, dev);
>> +}
>
> While the former is const-correct, I dislike the inability of passing
> pointers to const into helper functions like the latter. I can't think
> of a good solution other than introducing a second const variant
> of it, but I suppose we should try to find alternatives before
> adding such a construct that moves us in a direction opposite to
> getting our code more const-correct.

Oh right. I didn't though about that case. I will turn this inline 
function into a macro.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall