From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/24] xen/arm: gic: Add sanity checks gic_route_irq_to_guest Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:47:11 +0000 Message-ID: <54EB4B7F.8090605@linaro.org> References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1421159133-31526-11-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1424448429.30924.333.camel@citrix.com> <54E76EAC.6090100@linaro.org> <1424704810.27930.155.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YPvES-0005Ks-5z for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:47:40 +0000 Received: by wesw62 with SMTP id w62so19267985wes.12 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:47:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1424704810.27930.155.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Ian, On 23/02/15 15:20, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 17:28 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> The priority is controlled by route_irq_to_guest and set statically >> using GIC_PRI_IRQ. >> >> If we decide to hardcoded the priority here, we should drop the >> parameter on gic_route_irq_guest. But not keeping both. > > There is a middle ground, which is for guest-routed IRQs to be allowed a > subset of the real priorities, but until those associated checks are in > place I think hardcoding in gic_route_irq_to_guest leaves less scope for > mistakes. The interface for routing an IRQ to xen (gic_route_irq_to_xen) is taking the priority in parameter. I would prefer if we keep the same interface for guest and then hardcode the value in route_irq_to_guest. Regards, -- Julien Grall