From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/24] xen/arm: Introduce xen,
	passthrough property
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:03:30 +0000
Message-ID: <54E768E2.9070907@linaro.org>
References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>	
	<1421159133-31526-8-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1424446974.30924.315.camel@citrix.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.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1YOqzf-00020t-5l
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:03:59 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id l18so14301464wgh.8
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:03:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1424446974.30924.315.camel@citrix.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: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 20/02/15 15:42, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 14:25 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>> @@ -919,8 +943,14 @@ static int make_timer_node(const struct domain *d, void *fdt,
>>      return res;
>>  }
>>  
>> -/* Map the device in the domain */
>> -static int map_device(struct domain *d, struct dt_device_node *dev)
>> +/* For a given device node:
> 
> Strictly speaking should be:
>  /*
>   * For a given...
> 
> (I don't care all that much, but since I'm commenting elsewhere)

Hmmm right. I will change it.

>> @@ -947,7 +979,7 @@ static int map_device(struct domain *d, struct dt_device_node *dev)
>>          }
>>      }
>>  
>> -    /* Map IRQs */
>> +    /* Give permission and  map IRQs */
> 
> Another Nit: "  " -> " ".
> 
>> +        if ( need_mapping )
>> +        {
>> +            /*
>> +             * Checking the return of vgic_reserve_virq is not
>> +             * necessary. It should not fail except when we try to map
>> +             * twice the IRQ. This can happen if the IRQ is shared
> 
> "when we try to map the IRQ twice"
> 
> Other than those nits the code itself looks good, will ack once we've
> agreed on the bindings wording.

BTW, should we upstream the bindings to device tree git?

Thanks,

-- 
Julien Grall