From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 22/24] tools/libxl: arm: Use an higher
 value for the GIC phandle
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:12:45 +0000
Message-ID: <54CA4DED.8020708@linaro.org>
References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1421159133-31526-23-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1501291106350.9702@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<54CA21EE.9050407@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1501291226450.9702@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<54CA3A33.3070007@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1501291504350.9702@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
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.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1YGqmT-0002WI-L6
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:13:17 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id n3so25782074wiv.3
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:13:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1501291504350.9702@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>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, ian.campbell@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 29/01/15 15:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 29/01/15 12:28, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> On 29/01/15 11:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>> The partial device tree may contains phandle. The Device Tree Compiler
>>>>>> tends to allocate the phandle from 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reserve the ID 65000 for the GIC phandle. I think we can safely assume
>>>>>> that the partial device tree will never contain a such ID.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
>>>>>> Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't we at least check that the partial device tree doesn't contain
>>>>> a conflicting phandle?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. This will unlikely happen, and if it happens the guest
>>>> will crash with an obvious error.
>>>
>>> It is good that the error is obvious.
>>>
>>> But how expensive is to check for it?
>>
>> I would have to check the validity of the properties (name + value
>> size). At least the properties "linux,phandle" and "phandle" should be
>> checked.
>>
>> Though I could do in copy_properties but I find it hackish.
>>
>>> Think about the poor user that ends up in this situation: the fact that
>>> is unlikely only makes it harder for a user to figure out what to do to
>>> fix it.
>>
>> The poor use will have to write his device tree by hand to hit this
>> error ;).
>>
>> So using the right phandle is not a huge drawback.
> 
> Fair enough.  Please document this limitation in the docs and/or manuals.

I will do.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall