From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] xen/arm: Introduce a generic way
 to describe device
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:26:18 +0000
Message-ID: <54EC8A0A.6000101@linaro.org>
References: <1422643768-23614-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>	
	<1422643768-23614-7-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1424434952.30924.201.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.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1YQGRp-0001UG-BM
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:26:53 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l15so25838296wiw.5
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 06:26:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1424434952.30924.201.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: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Ian,

On 20/02/15 12:22, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 18:49 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>> @@ -2,8 +2,34 @@
>>  #define __ASM_ARM_DEVICE_H
>>  
>>  #include <xen/init.h>
>> +
>> +enum device_type
>> +{
>> +    DEV_DT,
> 
> I suppose no #ifdef here because an empty enum is a bit silly?

this code is ARM-specific and device tree is always supported for this
architecture.

>>  
>> +/* TODO: Correctly implement dev_is_pci when PCI will be supported on ARM */
> 
> s/will be/is/
> 
>> +#define dev_is_pci(dev) ((void)(dev), 0)
>> +#define dev_is_dt(dev)  ((dev->type == DEV_DT)
>> +
>>  enum device_class
>>  {
>>      DEVICE_SERIAL,
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/device.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/device.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..a016112
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/device.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
>> +#ifndef __ASM_X86_DEVICE_H
>> +#define __ASM_X86_DEVICE_H
>> +
>> +#include <xen/pci.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * x86 is only supported PCI. Therefore it's possible to directly use
> 
> "x86 is only supporting PCI" or (better) "x86 only supports PCI".
> 
>> +#define dt_to_dev(dt_node)  (&(dt_node)->dev)
>> +
>> +static inline struct dt_device_node *dev_to_dt(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +    ASSERT(dev->type == DEV_DT);
>> +
>> +    return container_of(dev, struct dt_device_node, dev);
>> +}
> 
> Given that x86 uses a difference struct and doesn't support DT shouldn't
> this either be wrapped in a HAVE_DEVICE_TREE or placed in the ARM header
> (or some other common-to-all-dt-platforms header)?

That would be a mistake to include <xen/device_tree.h> on x86. Currently
all the #include to this header are protected with #ifdef HAVE_DEVICE_TREE.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall